Click a link and need to go back 10x to get back. Yes, I enjoy the footballs.

  • officermike@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    9 days ago

    Yeah, I also hate back-button hijacking. I suspect some websites do it to artificially force more page views for ad revenue. Try a long-press on the back button to view the history for that browser tab and click on the most recent page you think won’t redirect.

    • yeehaw@lemmy.caEnglish
      16·
      9 days ago

      I usually right click the back button and go 2 entries back. Done.

      Microsoft also does this a lot on some of their sites.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      8 days ago

      I hate that this is even a feature in the web standard. A result of some massive corporate corruption for sure.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        8 days ago

        I recently looked into this after it seemed like Facebook messed with my back button on a private mobile window:

        Someone pointed out that it’s nice to have, for example, your email provider know that you probably want to go back for a message to your inbox instead of going back to the previous page.

        But what if browsers monitored which sites abused the feature and showed a pop-up when you click the back button, just like they offer to show you notifications? They could show you:

        This site has been reported to hijack the back button. Would you like to go back to the last domain that you visited?

        and offer to remember the setting.

    • Valmond@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      9 days ago

      Youtube does it, and it just continues to blast the wrong video you accidentally just auto-started because instead if fucking off, it shows other videos with the bad video getting just reduced.

      Aaargh for the state of todays internet

  • RedStrider@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    9 days ago

    I was just thinking about this.

    Super annoying because it can actually be fixed by using History.replaceState() over History.pushState().

    I guess the reason they do it is either to keep you stuck on their sucky site, or just incompetence.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          191·
          8 days ago

          I feel like when you’re talking corporations, hanlons razor needs to be reversed. Never attribute to stupidity what could be adequately explained by malice. We’ll call it Nolnahs razor.

        • orrk@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          8 days ago

          idk, it seems like with this being a company that generates revenue from “clicks” doing something that essentially makes a person refresh the page 20 times seems like a good decision to make

        • warbond@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 days ago

          Big Hanlon fan, but I don’t think stupidity is enough to explain why the site behaves that way.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            5·
            8 days ago

            I’m not a fan of Hanlon’s Razor, because I feel like people believe it to be some kind of steadfast law of the universe when in reality it’s just a “rule of thumb.” And honestly not even a great one imo.

            I feel like there are a whole lot of bad people that use the concept as cover to help them get away with the heinous shit they do. People who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

        • Mushroomm@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          6 days ago

          Alright lol so long as you understand being forged by the fires of the early internet deems you responsible to be aware of such tomfoolery against us internet patrons. Convince 10 computer illiterate friends to install ublock origin and all shall be forgiven haha

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    19·
    8 days ago

    microsoft does this with their community support/forums/whatever and it’s annoying when you’re trying to look up a problem in google. :///

  • ober9000@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    8 days ago

    Aren’t they scamming their advertisers too? Because if you click the back button a bunch of times it’s gonna reload a bunch of them on every click. At least if your internet is fast enough.

    • dan@upvote.auEnglish
      4·
      8 days ago

      Impressions are usually deduped, meaning multiple impressions from the same user during the same session are just counted as one. The big ad networks are extremely careful to avoid miscounting of any sort and will generally err on the side of undercounting rather than overcounting (since telling advertisers they got more impressions or clicks than reported is way better than telling them the numbers were accidentally inflated). Of course, there’s the occasional bug, but it mostly works as expected.

        • dan@upvote.auEnglish
          1·
          7 days ago

          Usually the ad needs to be in your viewport for at least a few seconds to count as an impression. If you were just going back quickly, or quickly refreshing the page, it won’t count. If you go back or refresh, see a different ad, wait a bit, then refresh again, I think it’d count.

          For skippable ads on YouTube, the advertiser only pays if you watch past the point where you can skip it. If I remember correctly, you have to watch at least 30 seconds of the video (or the full video if it’s less than 30 seconds) for it to count as a view.

      • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 days ago

        I just realized you meant data deduplication instead of “not duped by you bitches anymore”

  • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    182·
    8 days ago

    What makes me angry here is, I am 90% sure the browsers could code against this.

    If the user clicks a control on a webpage one time, the stack can declare “One user click! You have earned yourself One (1) navigation.” Then, the click activates some JavaScript that moves you to a new webpage. That new webpage has an auto-loader redirect that instead runs a 300ms timeout, and then takes you to some other page. The browser, meanwhile, has seen this, and establishes “We are still only operating off of that One (1) click. So, instead of adding a new page to the user history, we’ll replace that first navigation.”

    I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason as to why that’s not possible.

    • Robert7301201@slrpnk.netEnglish
      8·
      8 days ago

      We just got vertical align last month. There’s so many things they should be working on but are too busy trying to add more ads or monetization features.

      I think the web is just too long in the tooth at this point but there’s nothing we can do.

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        8 days ago

        CSS features like vertical alignment would be defined by web standards. Those fall under the non-profit org W3C. They’re pretty slow about things as to not break the fuck out of everything.

        Browser behaviour like merging redirects falls on browsers tho, so yeah, we can blame Chrome or FF on that one.

        • Overshoot2648@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          8 days ago

          Still waiting for CSS Color 4 so SVG gradients don’t look like shit. sRGB gradients are completely broken.

  • randon31415@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    9 days ago

    Also: Algorithmic generated feeds where you try to click on one thing, but you click on the next thing in the list and when you click back, the feed looks completely different because it has new information on you. That thing you wanted to click on is gone and will never return.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      9 days ago

      That’s actually how I do my Lemmy feed. I have one chance to comment on a thread and if I don’t do it, when the page refreshes I lose it forever.

      I’ve learned to accept that there are just some things the universe never wanted me to comment on.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.worldEnglish
        01·
        9 days ago

        I’d love that, my entire frontpage is the same 30 things over and over unless I deliberately sort for something then it’s a DIFFERENT 30 things over and over

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          8 days ago

          Try some different sorting options. I’ve found “Active” and “Hot” to be kind of shitty (though to be fair, I haven’t really used them in like 6 months so maybe they’re better).

          I usually go for “Top 6 Hours” or “Top 12 Hours” for stuff that’s not too old and relatively active.

      • ...m...@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        3·
        8 days ago

        …and now you’ve hit upon my other peeve: (mostly shopping) sites coded to disable browsing links in a new tab…

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          Perhaps it’s because I never raw dog the web, and using uBlock Origin on “medium mode” somehow fixes it, but I don’t think I have ever experienced that.

          I have experienced sites that block right clicking, and that has always infuriated me. But I was able to get a little FF extension that disables right click blocking on websites. Which is pretty useful for downloading videos on sites that try to stop you from downloading their videos (though some have wisened up and can completely disable the ability to save a video through that method. The “save video as” option is completely greyed out). yt-dlp usually works in those cases, or one of the countless web-based video downloaders… but still annoying.

          • ...m...@ttrpg.networkEnglish
            2·
            8 days ago

            …ah, i may be conflating contextal menus with opening new tabs, since that’s the primary UI mode i use to do so: regardless, any kind of shenanigans which aim to disable application-level UI get under my skin…

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      Youtube recommended videos does this. Not a huge issue because I can always search for the video myself but it’s annoying.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        8 days ago

        Ugh yes.

        Though on desktop I’ve completely switched over to using FreeTube, and I’ve been loving it. The order of the videos in the feed does not change. It’s great.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    9 days ago

    This could easily be fixed by the browsers but they don’t. Sure wish these back button tricks would stop. Especially news sites try to keep you from getting back to your search and makes your page refresh over and over. I wonder if that behavior counts as hits to their advertisers.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      9 days ago

      I don’t know about “easily.” replaceState() is actually intended to make single-page apps easier to use, by allowing you to use your back button as expected even when you’re staying on the same URL the entire time.

      Likewise, single-page apps are intended to be faster and more efficient than downloading a new static page that’s 99.9% identical to the old one every time you change something.

      Fixing this bad experience would eliminate the legitimate uses of replaceState().

      Now, what they could do is track your browser history “canonically” and fork it off whenever Javascript alters its state, and then allow you to use a keyboard shortcut (Alt + Back, perhaps?) to go to the “canonical” previous item in history instead of to the “forked” previous item.

      • deejay4am@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        9 days ago

        Pop a window open with a your app in it (with the user’s permission) without a back button if you want that.

        A web page should be a document, not an experience.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 days ago

          That would absolutely make everything worse, no question; the web should be more integrated, not less. We shouldn’t incentivize even more companies to silo off their content into apps.

          • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 days ago

            I think the word ‘app’ was being used in place of ‘webapp’ there, which is the general target audience for this feature.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              7 days ago

              Yes, I think you’re correct, but using browsers to coerce the web back into static documents will result in companies creating their own apps so that they can continue to deliver experiences. And the past 10+ years has shown that users will absolutely follow them.

              • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                7 days ago

                Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.

                Concerning your points after “using the browser”: I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        9 days ago

        I can handle life without the legitimate use case if it means no more clickjacking bs from companies that should know better

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          9 days ago

          I’d prefer not to let the bad actors dictate browser design.

          “Let’s get rid of images since companies can use images to spoof browserchrome elements.”

          “Let’s get rid of text since scammers can pretend to be sending messages from the computer’s operating system.”

          “Let’s get rid of email since phishing exists.”

          Nah. We can do some stuff (like the aforementioned forked history) to ameliorate the problem, and if it’s well-known enough, companies won’t find it necessary anymore. Heck, browsers like Firefox would probably even let you select Canonical Back as the default Back Button behavior, and then you can have the web the way you want it (like people who disable Javascript).

          • gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            3·
            9 days ago

            like people who disable Javascript).

            i do that, and i found that a TON of microsoft & bank/work websites just refuse to do anything without it. i love the modern internet /s

          • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            9 days ago

            I’m frustrated that removing bad functionality is being treated as a slippery slope with obviously bad and impossible jokes as the examples chosen.

            I see a bad feature being abused, and I don’t see the removal of that bad feature as a dangerous path to getting rid of email. I don’t ascribe the same weight that you seem to towards precedent in this matter.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              8 days ago

              I’ve been working in full stack for long enough to know that history manipulation is as much a part of the modern web as images and email. I’m not trying to be flippant, that’s just the state of the modern web. Single-page apps are here, and that’s a good thing. They’re being used badly, and that’s endemic to all features. So no, history manipulation is not “bad functionality,” though I admit it’s not fully baked in its current implementation.

              • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                8 days ago

                I accept that it’s how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.