Click a link and need to go back 10x to get back. Yes, I enjoy the footballs.
You must log in or register to comment.
Firefox should really implement a feature that hides this bullshit from the previous sites menu
Go to about:config and set “browser.navigation.requireUserInteraction” to true
I don’t understand why browsers support this “functionality”.
It’s a very “dumb” implementation of a generally useful feature. Browsers don’t keep track of how many times you’re redirected to the same site or try to consolidate the back-button list accordingly, but they certainly could. Wouldn’t be surprised if there was a plugin to this effect.
They actually do. To avoid infinite loops. If a URL redirects to the identical URL for more than ~5 times most browsers will refuse to load and show an error instead.
That’s why sites like this will generate new URLs with the same content.
It’s not for this, of course. It’s because in the world of single page applications built in react and angular where there is no physical back, like no actual server page to go back to just JavaScript, you have to code in what the back button means. Even though there’s no server calls to ask for a new page. New page. Most people still expect that forward and back will still go forward and back in standard navigation.
Sites like this it’s pretty clear that they just overwrite that with the last 20 calls to their own page, but the alternative is that single page applications would not be able to have forward or back functionality
if(this == this.previous) continue;
Great I’ll just add a unique guid to each path that is ignored and returns to the same place. You show me a 10 foot fence I’ll show you an 11 foot ladder.
I mean, I get that. I was making a joke. But 12 ft fence? Load in sandbox and compare html. Your move.
13 ft ladder:
<span hidden> guid </span>14 ft fence: Diff in html. If less than 10 lines different, ban.
15 ft ladder:
<div hidden> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> <?= rand() ?> </div>
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.
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
I use YouTube on desktop daily and I’ve never had this happen to me.
It does it on mobile
I’ve had this happen only when I go back too quickly, before the page can completely load in
I hate that this is even a feature in the web standard. A result of some massive corporate corruption for sure.
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.
I usually right click the back button and go 2 entries back. Done.
Microsoft also does this a lot on some of their sites.
I usually just block the site.
Usually with this, it’s like 20 entries, so pushes everything else off.
The ones where it’s only a couple entries mostly seem to be the ones where there’s multiple articles on a single page and it’s at least might be attempting to be helpful?
You can right click (long press on mobile) to skip back to the page that took you there
That’s what OP has done; that’s what we’re seeing in this screenshot.
The back button is highlighted. This list is the list of options OP gets when he right clicks the back button.
I don’t see evidence of them skipping back two pages past the point in history that redirects which is what prompted my comment.
MASSIVELY infuriating.
Open all links in new tabs.
This sounds horrible. I already have a tab issue
Either use tree tabs, or just close it when you’re done.
You’re clearly using tabs wrong….
No, my browser (Mullvad) clears everything upon quit. I quit every time I get on a new “subject”.
What helps with this is clicking links with mousewheeldown, I automatically opens in a new tab. Also MWD on the tab label will close it, so you don’t have to aim for the ‘x’.
A mouse with thumb buttons is really handy as they do foreward and back, double clicking that gets you out of the issue caused in op
I was just thinking about this.
Super annoying because it can actually be fixed by using
History.replaceState()overHistory.pushState().I guess the reason they do it is either to keep you stuck on their sucky site, or just incompetence.
You’re right, but “incompetence” seems harsh. Maybe I’m just sensitive today.
Hanlon’s Razor: Don’t attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity.
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.
Nolnah’s Razor…I like it, got a ring to it!
Corporations are run by stupid humans though.
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
Big Hanlon fan, but I don’t think stupidity is enough to explain why the site behaves that way.
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.
I consider the razors pseudo logic.
Three things.
-
Yes. Sometimes this is malice. Sometimes this is an attempt to drive impressions and page views.
-
This can also be caused by poorly configured web applications that update in real time. If, say, some sports website is giving you real-time data about the game as it progresses, a poorly configured web application might be creating a dynamic URL for every change. When you access the older page, it will be instructed to take you to the most recent data, so pressing back is taking you to old data on that page, and then immediately realizing that data is old so refreshing it with the most relevant data.
-
This is a super common misconfiguration in single page web applications. Domain.com will take you to an application that renders at domain.com/en-us/home. Pressing back takes you to domain.com, and guess what happens next?
This is basically 99.99% of these cases. I would say if its on some shitty news site with 1000 ads that somehow sneak by AdBlock and UBlok Origin, it’s case 1. Otherwise, it’s case 2 or 3.
The picture instance is either case 1 or 2.
Microsoft website does this (especially their useless answer), I guess it’s malice
MS makes a redirect to log you in, you can hit back button twice to escape. Bad design but not malice.
and neither case provides a service in a state that should be exposed to the outside. Either due to malice or incompetence.
Any website managed/developed by someone certified in the last decade or more knows not to do that.
It’s absolutely malicious, both to drive SRO and to keep “accidental” clicks from backing out so quickly
I know this site, it’s 1 for sure
-
Added to my blocked websites
Not sure about that site specifically, but others that’s done it to me was easy to get around. Most of them are thwarted with basically double clicking the back button.
As the screenshot illustrates, the redirects have been repeated many times to thwart that strategy.
I get that, forgot to mention that clicking the back button very very fast is what usually works for me.
Regardless, it’s annoying af
if you’re into college ball check out our cfb community: !cfb@fanaticus.social
Motherfucker put a trigger warning on that shit
just click again, but fast enough to get the redirect, but not too fast to miss it and double click, and try not to do it a third time or you’re going back a few ages.
Or right click the back button
I always held it. Now I feel like the same I did before.
Or ctrl+w to close the fucking site and never come back.
but that’s boring! Also then i have to use my mouse.
I’ve always wondered. Is there really a benefit to a ton of redirects like that? Like, do they gain anything by making it harder to back out?
Or is it just extremely incompetent website programming?
I always just assumed it was a form of “dark pattern” meant to try to stop people from leaving their website once they’ve entered (e.g., coming from a different site, you can’t just hit backspace or click back to immediately exit their site. You’re stuck now).
I think that’s right for a website where you accidentally clicked an ad and now it’s trying to convince you you have a virus and you need to download their virus to remove it. Or maybe for an ad pop-up where annoying you might increase the chances that the content makes it into your brain.
But for a news website i have trouble seeing the logic.
Any page that makes their revenue through ads do everything they can to maximize engagement, and that means keeping them on your website as long as possible. So any little thing they can do to that end, they will.
News websites get revenue via ads. This makes people load the same page again, loading the ads again.
I’d have expected ad providers to catch on pretty quickly that there’s cheating involved, no?
Nope. They just hear back about number of views and how it influences the shoppers and brags about how it works.
I honestly think it’s mostly the idea of advertising that keeps it running as an industry.
Like Facebook juicing their video viewership and recent news about Google using off screen ads in their views and impressions numbers.
They also get paid off of this, the advertiser pays for those impressions.
Advertisers can’t switch because they can’t not be present on big platforms. The whole ad industry is just companies scamming each other and the consumer.
more ads displayed with each redirect i guess?
“mildly” infuriating
