Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #33282 > unrolled thread

No more Redirect page.

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  No more Redirect page.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-24 11:03 -0400
    Re: No more Redirect page. Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2026-07-25 15:46 -0500
      Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-25 20:24 -0400
        Re: No more Redirect page. Paul in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> - 2026-07-26 01:37 -0500
          Re: No more Redirect page. "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-07-26 09:22 +0200
            Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-26 11:46 -0400
              Re: No more Redirect page. "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-07-26 21:25 +0200
                Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-26 19:26 -0400
                  Re: No more Redirect page. "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-07-27 10:34 +0200
                    Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-27 10:43 -0400
                      Re: No more Redirect page. "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-07-27 21:00 +0200
                        Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-28 13:33 -0400
                          Re: No more Redirect page. "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-07-29 10:53 +0200
                      Re: No more Redirect page. "....winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 20:45 -0400
                        Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-29 23:01 -0400
    Re: No more Redirect page. "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-07-28 21:50 +0200
      Re: No more Redirect page. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2026-07-29 22:59 -0400

#33282 — No more Redirect page.

This post may seem like I'm talking down to you folks, but it's what I
sent to my friends who don't know much, and I haven't rewritten it much,
bit.  Just skip to the end. 

Tired of the latest annoying thing on the PC?   The Redirect page. 

You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
(google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs". Other
things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
a second time in a second tab.  

So, I want to get rid of this.  Below is an add-on for Firefox. Whatever
web browser you use,  Firefox, Chrome, Edge --- and it might exist for
less common ones too  --- look in the add-ons  or extensions and look
for SkipRedirect or Bypass Google Redirect Notice.  Or even easier, just
search for "Redirect" and there will probably be only one add-on with
that word  in the name.  

This is the one for Firefox.  it seems to beep and display a little box
for a seconds or two that says it has performed the redirect. (Maybe
he'll get rid of that some day.  But you can use the Volume Mixer to
turn off System Sounds if you want   This will also turn off other
sounds, like, I think, sounds made when you make an error.)  The add-ons
for other browsers may also have been written by Sebastian Blask. 

TripAdvisor also displays a separate Redirect notification page.  I
don't encounter that nearly as often as I use Google search.  I just
checked and yes, ithis add-on gets rid of that too. 


Skip Redirect by Sebastian Blask

"Some web pages use intermediary pages before redirecting to a final
page. This add-on tries to extract the final url from the intermediary
url and goes there straight away if successful.    
   4.5 stars  (198 reviews)   11,890 Users"

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect/ 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33327

micky wrote:
> 
> This post may seem like I'm talking down to you folks, but it's what I
> sent to my friends who don't know much, and I haven't rewritten it much,
> bit.  Just skip to the end.
> 
> Tired of the latest annoying thing on the PC?   The Redirect page.
> 
> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
> another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
> though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
> appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
> (google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs". Other
> things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
> important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
> to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
> a second time in a second tab.
> 
> So, I want to get rid of this.  Below is an add-on for Firefox. Whatever
> web browser you use,  Firefox, Chrome, Edge --- and it might exist for
> less common ones too  --- look in the add-ons  or extensions and look
> for SkipRedirect or Bypass Google Redirect Notice.  Or even easier, just
> search for "Redirect" and there will probably be only one add-on with
> that word  in the name.
> 
> This is the one for Firefox.  it seems to beep and display a little box
> for a seconds or two that says it has performed the redirect. (Maybe
> he'll get rid of that some day.  But you can use the Volume Mixer to
> turn off System Sounds if you want   This will also turn off other
> sounds, like, I think, sounds made when you make an error.)  The add-ons
> for other browsers may also have been written by Sebastian Blask.
> 
> TripAdvisor also displays a separate Redirect notification page.  I
> don't encounter that nearly as often as I use Google search.  I just
> checked and yes, ithis add-on gets rid of that too.
> 
> 
> Skip Redirect by Sebastian Blask
> 
> "Some web pages use intermediary pages before redirecting to a final
> page. This add-on tries to extract the final url from the intermediary
> url and goes there straight away if successful.
>     4.5 stars  (198 reviews)   11,890 Users"
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect/

This works but adds a significant amount of time to web browsing.
I tried it for a week then turned it off.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33333

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 25 Jul 2026 15:46:35 -0500, Paul
in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>> 
>> This post may seem like I'm talking down to you folks, but it's what I
>> sent to my friends who don't know much, and I haven't rewritten it much,
>> bit.  Just skip to the end.
>> 
>> Tired of the latest annoying thing on the PC?   The Redirect page.
>> 
>> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
>> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
>> another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
>> though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
>> appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
>> (google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs". Other
>> things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
>> important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
>> to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
>> a second time in a second tab.
>> 
>> So, I want to get rid of this.  Below is an add-on for Firefox. Whatever
>> web browser you use,  Firefox, Chrome, Edge --- and it might exist for
>> less common ones too  --- look in the add-ons  or extensions and look
>> for SkipRedirect or Bypass Google Redirect Notice.  Or even easier, just
>> search for "Redirect" and there will probably be only one add-on with
>> that word  in the name.
>> 
>> This is the one for Firefox.  it seems to beep and display a little box
>> for a seconds or two that says it has performed the redirect. (Maybe
>> he'll get rid of that some day.  But you can use the Volume Mixer to
>> turn off System Sounds if you want   This will also turn off other
>> sounds, like, I think, sounds made when you make an error.)  The add-ons
>> for other browsers may also have been written by Sebastian Blask.
>> 
>> TripAdvisor also displays a separate Redirect notification page.  I
>> don't encounter that nearly as often as I use Google search.  I just
>> checked and yes, ithis add-on gets rid of that too.
>> 
>> 
>> Skip Redirect by Sebastian Blask
>> 
>> "Some web pages use intermediary pages before redirecting to a final
>> page. This add-on tries to extract the final url from the intermediary
>> url and goes there straight away if successful.
>>     4.5 stars  (198 reviews)   11,890 Users"
>> 
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect/
>
>This works but adds a significant amount of time to web browsing.
>I tried it for a week then turned it off.

But what is the altenative?  Without it, you have to go the next tab and
click on it, just to allow the redirect.  Doesn't that take far longer? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33345

micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 25 Jul 2026 15:46:35 -0500, Paul
> in Houston TX <Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
> 
>> micky wrote:
>>>
>>> This post may seem like I'm talking down to you folks, but it's what I
>>> sent to my friends who don't know much, and I haven't rewritten it much,
>>> bit.  Just skip to the end.
>>>
>>> Tired of the latest annoying thing on the PC?   The Redirect page.
>>>
>>> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
>>> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
>>> another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
>>> though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
>>> appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
>>> (google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs". Other
>>> things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
>>> important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
>>> to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
>>> a second time in a second tab.
>>>
>>> So, I want to get rid of this.  Below is an add-on for Firefox. Whatever
>>> web browser you use,  Firefox, Chrome, Edge --- and it might exist for
>>> less common ones too  --- look in the add-ons  or extensions and look
>>> for SkipRedirect or Bypass Google Redirect Notice.  Or even easier, just
>>> search for "Redirect" and there will probably be only one add-on with
>>> that word  in the name.
>>>
>>> This is the one for Firefox.  it seems to beep and display a little box
>>> for a seconds or two that says it has performed the redirect. (Maybe
>>> he'll get rid of that some day.  But you can use the Volume Mixer to
>>> turn off System Sounds if you want   This will also turn off other
>>> sounds, like, I think, sounds made when you make an error.)  The add-ons
>>> for other browsers may also have been written by Sebastian Blask.
>>>
>>> TripAdvisor also displays a separate Redirect notification page.  I
>>> don't encounter that nearly as often as I use Google search.  I just
>>> checked and yes, ithis add-on gets rid of that too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip Redirect by Sebastian Blask
>>>
>>> "Some web pages use intermediary pages before redirecting to a final
>>> page. This add-on tries to extract the final url from the intermediary
>>> url and goes there straight away if successful.
>>>      4.5 stars  (198 reviews)   11,890 Users"
>>>
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/skip-redirect/
>>
>> This works but adds a significant amount of time to web browsing.
>> I tried it for a week then turned it off.
> 
> But what is the altenative?  Without it, you have to go the next tab and
> click on it, just to allow the redirect.  Doesn't that take far longer?

I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a notification 
that a redirect has been blocked.  I figure that if they are redirected 
then they are not worth looking at or have been redirected for nefarious 
reasons.  Our web viewing is probably way different, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33346

Paul in Houston TX,

> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a notification that 
> a redirect has been blocked.

I've set them to "ask", and regulary encounter them.  Often due to parking 
of an expired domain - but as often due to redirection from the www.xxx to 
the "xxx" domain (or vice-verse).  And sometimes for a permanent (301) or 
temporary (302) reason.

In my case I often follow the first redirect.  If that one isn't 
recognisable (looks shady) I most always abort.   Although a (very) few 
times I followed a redirect chain four deep before aborting (I really wanted 
what the origional link told it would provide). :-\

>> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
>> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection

Although Google in the past did redirect every link (for statistics 
purposes?) nowerdays they seem to use other methods.  A new property to the 
Anchor ("A") tag has been introduced that does, when the link is clicked, a 
call-back to a provided URL (no user-relevant usage, only good for 
tracking), but AFAIK Firefox decided not to implement it.

And there is ofcourse JavaScript ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33350

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Jul 2026 09:22:31 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Paul in Houston TX,
>
>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a notification that 
>> a redirect has been blocked.

Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not using
Firefox, right?   

Google must have done this at one time in Chrome because there is an
add-on specifically for Google-search redirects, but I don't have one
installed in Chrome or Edge and it worked without redirecting.  So I
guess they are not doing it now 

>I've set them to "ask", and regulary encounter them.  Often due to parking 
>of an expired domain - but as often due to redirection from the www.xxx to 
>the "xxx" domain (or vice-verse).  And sometimes for a permanent (301) or 
>temporary (302) reason.
>
>In my case I often follow the first redirect.  If that one isn't 
>recognisable (looks shady) I most always abort.   Although a (very) few 
>times I followed a redirect chain four deep before aborting (I really wanted 
>what the origional link told it would provide). :-\
>
>>> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
>>> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection
>
>Although Google in the past did redirect every link (for statistics 

In the past?  I never had it before, until it started on Firefox a week
or two ago. 

And it's for every item in google search, and I know it's still doing it
because  the add-on displays a little box in the bottom right, which it
would not do if google search wasn't sending the redirect message (What
is the proper syntax for my last 4 words here?)

Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.   Or more
likely it's Firefox and you two don't use FF.  Since I cross-posted, I
can't tell where you saw my post. 

Is it that  google itself is only using redirect for FF, or are they
using it Chrome and Edge too and those browsers are just waving the url
through, without asking the user for confirmation? 

>purposes?) nowerdays they seem to use other methods.  A new property to the 
>Anchor ("A") tag has been introduced that does, when the link is clicked, a 
>call-back to a provided URL (no user-relevant usage, only good for 
>tracking), but AFAIK Firefox decided not to implement it.


>
>And there is ofcourse JavaScript ...
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33354

micky,

> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Paul in Houston TX,
>>
>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a notification
>>> that a redirect has been blocked.
>
> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not using
> Firefox, right?

When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote stuff 
from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).

> Google must have done this at one time in Chrome because there is an
> add-on specifically for Google-search redirects, but I don't have one
> installed in Chrome or Edge and it worked without redirecting.  So I
> guess they are not doing it now

Also, stop guessing. 'Cause thats all you're doing.

Furthermore, you guess that Paul must not have done this-or-that, but than 
directly follow it up with describing how you often get the same result Paul 
does.  Paul already mentioned he does "rarely see a notification" - just 
like you.

> So I guess they are not doing it now

If you think that Google is flip-flopping it on-and-off than why would they 
be doing that ?   It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.

>>Although Google in the past did redirect every link (for statistics
>
> In the past?

Yes, in the past.  As in: over a decade ago.

> I never had it before, until it started on Firefox a week or two ago.

"it" ?  You mean those redirect warnings ?  I suggest you think back to that 
time and try to figure out everything that got changed.  Perhaps it was due 
to a Firefox update.  Perhaps you, unknowingly, changed the setting 
yourself.  Perhaps you never noticed, until you did and you now notice it 
every time.

And do take heed of the words of a wise man (most likely a statistican) : 
correlation does not equal causation.  iow, do not jump to conclusions.

> And it's for every item in google search, and I know it's still doing
> it because the add-on displays a little box in the bottom right, which
> it would not do if google search wasn't sending the redirect message

Thats odd.  As mentioned, JS is quite capable of, when you click a link on a 
Google search-result page, sending that clicked link back to Google.  JS 
also capable of doing the actual redirect - no need to follow the link to 
Google and have it send a "redirected to" HTTP result back.

Did you perhaps disable JS ?

> (What is the proper syntax for my last 4 words here?)

What you wrote is good enough.

There is another problem though : you wrote that the add-on would just 
extract the actual URL from the one thats returned on Googles search-result 
page.  If that is so a redirect never happens.

iow, you seem to be a bit foggy about what actually happens, and that 
doesn't quite work when you want to argue about it ...

> Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.

Again: stop making wild guesses.  Or at least stop posting them.

Or, if you really like wild guesses : there is a possibility that your 
'puter is unstable, your haddisk is dying, your puter has a virus or someone 
hacked into it.  Than again you might have offended a kobold and he's now 
haunting you. :-)

> Is it that google itself is only using redirect for FF,

Unlikely.  Again, It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.

But hey, find yourself a 'puter with Chrome and/or Edge on it and check it 
out for yourself.

> or are they using it Chrome and Edge too and those browsers are just
> waving the url through, without asking the user for confirmation?

Rather possible.

The last time I checked Firefox had a setting to how to respond to 
redirects.  Paul already mentioned that he has set it blocked, as I did that 
I've set it to ask.

I have no idea (and don't care) if Chrome and Edge have something 
comparable.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33363

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:25:25 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>micky,
>
>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul in Houston TX,
>>>
>>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a notification
>>>> that a redirect has been blocked.
>>
>> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not using
>> Firefox, right?
>
>When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote stuff 
>from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).

The double > that was in front of the quoted words did not make clear to
whom I was replying? 

>> Google must have done this at one time in Chrome because there is an
>> add-on specifically for Google-search redirects, but I don't have one
>> installed in Chrome or Edge and it worked without redirecting.  So I
>> guess they are not doing it now
>
>Also, stop guessing. 'Cause thats all you're doing.

"Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction that they are
not doing it now since I tried google search in those other two browsers
and I didn't get a redirect messsage in my new tab.

>Furthermore, you guess that Paul must not have done this-or-that, but than 
>directly follow it up with describing how you often get the same result Paul 
>does.  Paul already mentioned he does "rarely see a notification" - just 
>like you.

That's not just like me.  In the last week or two, I always got a
redirect tab, and since installign the add-on, I always get a redirect
notification.   Both when using google and when clicking on an outside
link in TripAdvisor. 

>> So I guess they are not doing it now
>
>If you think that Google is flip-flopping it on-and-off than why would they 
>be doing that ?   It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.

I can't read the minds of the google technicians.  But you yourself said
"Google in the past did redirect every link (for statistics 
purposes?)"  So it was on and they turned it off, and who are we to tell
them they can't turn it back on, for statistics purposes?   Maybe they
didn't want those statistics for a while and now they want them again .

"nowerdays they seem to use other methods."  They "seem to"?  So you are
guessing too. 

>>>Although Google in the past did redirect every link (for statistics
>>
>> In the past?
>
>Yes, in the past.  As in: over a decade ago.
>
>> I never had it before, until it started on Firefox a week or two ago.
>
>"it" ?  You mean those redirect warnings ? 

Yes, Redirect warnings. 

> I suggest you think back to that 
>time and try to figure out everything that got changed.  Perhaps it was due 
>to a Firefox update. 

Plainly I thought the change was in Google, but it's possible that
Firefox changed.  That's an advantage of my posting this to the Firefox
ng, so that someone in that group might know if that's what happened. 

Are you or Paul using Firefox?  Are you or Paul conversant in changes
made to it?

> Perhaps you, unknowingly, changed the setting 
>yourself.  Perhaps you never noticed, until you did and you now notice it 
>every time.

I didn't change any settings. 

>And do take heed of the words of a wise man (most likely a statistican) : 
>correlation does not equal causation.  iow, do not jump to conclusions.

I know that. But something changed. 

>> And it's for every item in google search, and I know it's still doing
>> it because the add-on displays a little box in the bottom right, which
>> it would not do if google search wasn't sending the redirect message
>
>Thats odd.  As mentioned, JS is quite capable of, when you click a link on a 
>Google search-result page, sending that clicked link back to Google.  JS 
>also capable of doing the actual redirect - no need to follow the link to 
>Google and have it send a "redirected to" HTTP result back.
>
>Did you perhaps disable JS ?

My JS ia on. 
>
>> (What is the proper syntax for my last 4 words here?)
>
>What you wrote is good enough.

Good. 

>There is another problem though : you wrote that the add-on would just 
>extract the actual URL from the one thats returned on Googles search-result 
>page.

That sentence was in quotes. IIRC it came from ASI. 

>  If that is so a redirect never happens.
>
>iow, you seem to be a bit foggy about what actually happens, and that 
>doesn't quite work when you want to argue about it ...

I've never claimed to know how it works.  I just wanted it to go away,
and the add-on does that for me.   I wanted to share it with other
people who might benefit. 

>> Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.
>
>Again: stop making wild guesses.  Or at least stop posting them.

Regional was a reasonable guess.  The second one was meant to be
humorous.  I'm sorry that you don't share my sense of humor. 

>Or, if you really like wild guesses : there is a possibility that your 
>'puter is unstable, your haddisk is dying, your puter has a virus or someone 
>hacked into it.  Than again you might have offended a kobold and he's now 
>haunting you. :-)
>
>> Is it that google itself is only using redirect for FF,
>
>Unlikely.  Again, It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.
>
>But hey, find yourself a 'puter with Chrome and/or Edge on it and check it 
>out for yourself.

I did that and I gave the result.  Only for FF was there a redirect
message. That's why I just asked "Is it that google itself is only using
redirect for FF?"

>> or are they using it Chrome and Edge too and those browsers are just
>> waving the url through, without asking the user for confirmation?
>
>Rather possible.
>
>The last time I checked Firefox had a setting to how to respond to 
>redirects. 
https://support.mozilla.org/fr/questions/1474091
"The warning that Firefox shows when websites redirect or reload the
page is blocked can no longer be controlled via Settings.
You can set this pref in about:config to false to disable this feature.

    about:config => accessibility.blockautorefresh => false "

I have to learn more about the similarity and difference between
redirect and reload/refresh. 

> Paul already mentioned that he has set it blocked, as I did that 
>I've set it to ask.
>
>I have no idea (and don't care) if Chrome and Edge have something 
>comparable.

Well this was posted to the Windows groups where some readers use those
browsers. 

>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser

Micky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33368

Micky,

>>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul in Houston TX,
>>>>
>>>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a
>>>>> notification that a redirect has been blocked.
>>>
>>> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not
>>> using Firefox, right?
>>
>> When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote
>> stuff from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).
>
> The double > that was in front of the quoted words did not make clear
> to whom I was replying?

No, it didn't.  It just made you look like an inattentive person.

Besides, why didn't you just respond to Pauls post, instead of jamming you 
response to him into your reply to me ?

Something stinks here, and it aint my socks.

> "Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction

In your case ?   No.  You're guessing like a hunter uses buckshot : you 
don't really need to aim, *something* should hit the target, right ?

The problem is that you are oblivious to the fact that we need to go thru 
*all* those buckshot pellets, checking if they hit anything.  Thats quite 
tiresome to anyone who tries to help you.

> It was a logical deduction that they are not doing it now since
> I tried google search in those other two browsers and I didn't
> get a redirect messsage in my new tab.

And even there you used the buckshot-guesses appproach - expecting us to 
figure out what might be the actual cause.  Nonwithstanding that you have 
two other browsers and could (at least attempt to) figure it out for 
yourself.

>> I suggest you think back to that time and try to figure out everything
>> that got changed.  Perhaps it was due to a Firefox update.
>
> Plainly I thought the change was in Google,

Funny that : multiple possibilities, but there you only have a single guess.

... and although you had the tools (two browsers next to Firefox) to figure 
that guess out for yourself* you stil expect us to come up with the answer.

* a simple comparision of the HTML "sourcecode" (limited to a specific "A" 
tag) gotten from your different browsers have would likely have sufficed.

>> Perhaps you, unknowingly, changed the setting yourself.  Perhaps
>> you never noticed, until you did and you now notice it every time.
>
> I didn't change any settings.

... that you know of.

You might just have mashed the "yes" button below a question you did not 
comprehend.  You might even have forgotten that you changed something 
somewhere (and changed it back) not aware of its side-effects.

>> And do take heed of the words of a wise man (most likely a
>> statistican) : correlation does not equal causation.  iow, do not
>> jump to conclusions.
>
> I know that. But something changed.

Possibly.  And one of those changes could be, as I already mentioned, your 
perception (iow: your puter didn't change at all).

>>Did you perhaps disable JS ?
>
> My JS ia on.

That means that, in line with my earlier explanation, Google should not need 
to provide search-result page links pointing to themselves (and than 
redirecting to the actual target).

And fyi, they do not want to use that method, as its too easy to tamper 
with - as you told us you are now doing with that add-on of yours.

>> There is another problem though : you wrote that the add-on would
>> just extract the actual URL from the one thats returned on Googles
>> search-result page.
>
> That sentence was in quotes. IIRC it came from ASI.

And "ASI" is ment to signify ... what ?

But it doesn't really matter.  It (rewriting the links) just happens to be 
what I did myself all those years ago, so I can easily imagine an add-on 
doing the same.

iow, my question still stands : why/how would you get Firefox redirect popup 
messages when the Google result-page links are rewritten to be directly to 
the target webpage ?

>>> Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.
>>
>> Again: stop making wild guesses.  Or at least stop posting them.
>
> Regional was a reasonable guess.  The second one was meant to be
> humorous.  I'm sorry that you don't share my sense of humor.

That "Regional" was (again) a wild guess.  There is nothing pointing to it, 
and you (again) have got zero to show for it.  Its pretty-much worthless.

As for your "maybe google just doesn't like me" ? Its of the same quality. 
My guess was that you're possibly someone who sees conspiracy theories 
everywhere.  You would not be the first one...

>>> Is it that google itself is only using redirect for FF,
>>
>> Unlikely.  Again, It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.
>>
>> But hey, find yourself a 'puter with Chrome and/or Edge on it and check
>> it out for yourself.
>
> I did that and I gave the result.  Only for FF was there a redirect
> message. That's why I just asked "Is it that google itself is only
> using redirect for FF?"

No, you didn't do that.  The only thing you've told us that Firefox gives 
redirect warnings, while the other two do not.

Goddamn man, you even told us that that could be because the other two 
simply do not give redirect warnings.

iow, all three browser could easily get the same webpage, with only Firefox 
warning you about the redirects.  Is that so hard to understand ?

But again, I suggest you open the HTML "sourcecode" in Firefox and at least 
one other browser you have, and compare them (to what Firefox shows).  That 
should give you your answer.

> I have to learn more about the similarity and difference between
> redirect and reload/refresh.

The difference is easy : A redirect loads another webpage, a refesh re-loads 
the current one.

... although at least one of the "refresh" methods can redirect to another 
webpage.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33370

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:34:40 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Micky,
>
>>>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul in Houston TX,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a
>>>>>> notification that a redirect has been blocked.
>>>>
>>>> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not
>>>> using Firefox, right?
>>>
>>> When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote
>>> stuff from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).
>>
>> The double > that was in front of the quoted words did not make clear
>> to whom I was replying?
>
>No, it didn't.  It just made you look like an inattentive person.
>
>Besides, why didn't you just respond to Pauls post, instead of jamming you 
>response to him into your reply to me ?

I think it is much more clear to reply to everyone in the same post,
instead of making people look through scrattered posts to see the whole
picture. 

>Something stinks here, and it aint my socks.
>
>> "Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction
>
>In your case ?   No.  You're gu essing like a hunter uses buckshot : you 
>don't really need to aim, *something* should hit the target, right ?

I'm sorry you can't follow the logic. 

>The problem is that you are oblivious to the fact that we need to go thru 
>*all* those buckshot pellets, checking if they hit anything.  Thats quite 
>tiresome to anyone who tries to help you.
>
>> It was a logical deduction that they are not doing it now since
>> I tried google search in those other two browsers and I didn't
>> get a redirect messsage in my new tab.
>
>And even there you used the buckshot-guesses appproach - expecting us to 
>figure out what might be the actual cause.  Nonwithstanding that you have 
>two other browsers and could (at least attempt to) figure it out for 
>yourself.

As I said, I had not tried the other two browsers yet.  That's one of
the advantages of answering eveyone in the same post  Paul won't read a
short reply to him only and start suggesting I try other browsers, when
he can see further down in this same post that later I did that. 

>>> I suggest you think back to that time and try to figure out everything
>>> that got changed.  Perhaps it was due to a Firefox update.
>>
>> Plainly I thought the change was in Google,
>
>Funny that : multiple possibilities, but there you only have a single guess.

It's normal to have a primary guess.  I'm sorry you don't think so. 

>... and although you had the tools (two browsers next to Firefox) to figure 
>that guess out for yourself* you stil expect us to come up with the answer.
>
>* a simple comparision of the HTML "sourcecode" (limited to a specific "A" 
>tag) gotten from your different browsers have would likely have sufficed.
>
>>> Perhaps you, unknowingly, changed the setting yourself.  Perhaps
>>> you never noticed, until you did and you now notice it every time.
>>
>> I didn't change any settings.
>
>... that you know of.

I didn't change any settings. 

>You might just have mashed the "yes" button below a question you did not 
>comprehend.  You might even have forgotten that you changed something 
>somewhere (and changed it back) not aware of its side-effects.

None of that happened. 

>>> And do take heed of the words of a wise man (most likely a
>>> statistican) : correlation does not equal causation.  iow, do not
>>> jump to conclusions.
>>
>> I know that. But something changed.
>
>Possibly.  

What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no redirect
messages and now there are. Something changed. You just want to take
issue with everything I say.   Why is that? 

>And one of those changes could be, as I already mentioned, your 
>perception (iow: your puter didn't change at all).

I think it's much more likely that your perception of the situation is
incorrect. 

>>>Did you perhaps disable JS ?
>>
>> My JS ia on.
>
>That means that, in line with my earlier explanation, Google should not need 
>to provide search-result page links pointing to themselves (and than 
>redirecting to the actual target).

Since the results are not as that predicts, apparently your earlier
explanation is wrong or inapplicable.  Why am I not surprised?

>And fyi, they do not want to use that method, as its too easy to tamper 
>with - as you told us you are now doing with that add-on of yours.

Too many pronouns.  Do you mean that google does not want me to use an
add-on to bypass the need to click yes on the redirect message?  Are you
telling me I shouldn't do it becaues Google doesn't want me to?  

>>> There is another problem though : you wrote that the add-on would
>>> just extract the actual URL from the one thats returned on Googles
>>> search-result page.
>>
>> That sentence was in quotes. IIRC it came from ASI.
>
>And "ASI" is ment to signify ... what ?

Artificial Semi-Intelligence. 

>But it doesn't really matter.  It (rewriting the links) just happens to be 
>what I did myself all those years ago, so I can easily imagine an add-on 
>doing the same.
>
>iow, my question still stands : why/how would you get Firefox redirect popup 
>messages when the Google result-page links are rewritten to be directly to 
>the target webpage ?

"links are rewritten to be directly to the target webpage"  Maybe that
assumption is false.  You've had plenty of reason by now to think it's
false and you are still assuming it's true, so don't criticize me as you
did above for having a "single guess". You're doing the same thing I did
except you're continuing to hold your assumption longer.

>>>> Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.
>>>
>>> Again: stop making wild guesses.  Or at least stop posting them.
>>
>> Regional was a reasonable guess.  The second one was meant to be
>> humorous.  I'm sorry that you don't share my sense of humor.
>
>That "Regional" was (again) a wild guess.  There is nothing pointing to it, 
>and you (again) have got zero to show for it.  Its pretty-much worthless.

There doesn't have to be anything at hand pointing to it.  A decent
debugger takes note of issues that mattered in other situations.  Since
regionality does matter in several other situation, it was a reasonable
guess and your insistence that it was wild after I said it was not is
just evidence of your nasty nature.  And rejecting possibilities out of
hand makes me wonder if you were good at your job. 
>
>As for your "maybe google just doesn't like me" ? Its of the same quality. 
>My guess was that you're possibly someone who sees conspiracy theories 
>everywhere.  You would not be the first one...

I told you it was humor. I guess you don't understand humor.  What a
surprise. 

>>>> Is it that google itself is only using redirect for FF,
>>>
>>> Unlikely.  Again, It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.
>>>
>>> But hey, find yourself a 'puter with Chrome and/or Edge on it and check
>>> it out for yourself.
>>
>> I did that and I gave the result.  Only for FF was there a redirect
>> message. That's why I just asked "Is it that google itself is only
>> using redirect for FF?"
>
>No, you didn't do that.  The only thing you've told us that Firefox gives 
>redirect warnings, while the other two do not.

Again you're using too many pronouns.  3 paragraphs up you say "check IT
out" and then just now you say "you didn't do THAT".   Maybe you can
explain the difference betwee IT and THAT? 
>
>Goddamn man, you even told us that that could be because the other two 
>simply do not give redirect warnings.
>
>iow, all three browser could easily get the same webpage, with only Firefox 
>warning you about the redirects.  Is that so hard to understand ?

It sounds like a wild guess to me. 

>But again, I suggest you open the HTML "sourcecode" in Firefox and at least 
>one other browser you have, and compare them (to what Firefox shows).  That 
>should give you your answer.

I don't care that much.  I barely care at all.  I was happy to
participate in a discussion about this, but since it's working for me,
that's what matters.  

It never mattered much. I started the thread to help people, not to
understand the inside workings of redirects. 

>> I have to learn more about the similarity and difference between
>> redirect and reload/refresh.
>
>The difference is easy : A redirect loads another webpage, a refesh re-loads 
>the current one.

Okay, but it doesn't answer whether that about:config setting,
accessibility.blockautorefresh, applies to both since only "refresh" was
in its name, not redirect. I suspect it does not. 

>... although at least one of the "refresh" methods can redirect to another 
>webpage.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
Micky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33372

Micky,

>> Besides, why didn't you just respond to Pauls post, instead of jamming
>> your response to him into your reply to me ?
>
> I think it is much more clear to reply to everyone in the same post,
> instead of making people look through scrattered posts to see the whole
> picture.

The only thing you can hope to gain is to preclude the inevitable branching 
of the thread by a single post - while creating confusion about whom you are 
actually talking to.  Well done. /s

>>> "Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction
>>
>> In your case ?   No.  You're gu essing like a hunter uses buckshot :
>> you don't really need to aim, *something* should hit the target,
>> right ?
>
> I'm sorry you can't follow the logic.

Follow *wat* logic ?

You have claimed you used it, but somehow never told us about what, 
according to you, that logic looks like.  iow, there is nothing to follow 
for me/us.

> As I said, I had not tried the other two browsers yet.

You also said you *did* use them, and from it did draw the conclusion Google 
must be feeding Firefox different search-result pages.  Remember ?

>>> Plainly I thought the change was in Google,
>>
>> Funny that : multiple possibilities, but there you only have a
>> single guess.
>
> It's normal to have a primary guess.  I'm sorry you don't think
> so.

Sorry kiddo, but you can't call a single guess primary.  For that you need 
/at least/ two of them.   So, where are the other ones - secondary, tertiary 
and so on ?

Oh, wait, I already gave you a bunch of other guesses ... Including two with 
a high probability - one of which, how Firefox alerts you to redirects, you 
actually found some info about and posted a link to.

>>> I know that. But something changed.
>>
>>Possibly.
>
> What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no
> redirect messages and now there are. Something changed.

Well, I already told you at least twice that it just might be just your 
perception that changed.   You have not disproven it in any way.  You also 
have not provided proof for anything else.

iow, you're /still/ guessing ...

>>> I didn't change any settings.
>>
>>... that you know of.
>
> I didn't change any settings.
>
>> You might just have mashed the "yes" button below a question you did
>> not comprehend.  You might even have forgotten that you changed
>> something somewhere (and changed it back) not aware of its side-
>> effects.
>
> None of that happened.

How would you know ?   Because you can't remember it ?  Yeah, thats 
certainly proof. /s

Kiddo, you throw random and far-fetched guesses around like there is no 
tomorrow, but when I present you with a possibility that has happened quite 
often you offhandedly reject it.  Great going.

And no, I'm not saying that that is what actually happened, but its in a 
helpdesks top-ten of "my 'puter suddenly stopped working, but I didn't do 
nuthin" causes.

>>> I know that. But something changed.
>>
>>Possibly.
>
> What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no
> redirect messages and now there are. Something changed. You just
> want to take issue with everything I say.   Why is that?

An old saying: "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

I already explained the above to you.  Its upto you to try to understand.

Micky, you know little-to-nothing about your problem, but you already 
somehow know who must have done it and what it specifically can't be.  The 
only thing you expect from me is to explain to you *how* what you have 
determined must have happened has actually come to be.

Thats not going to happen.

Bottom line: by now you should know what the cause of your "problem" is and 
how to "fix" it.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33387

No new points so no new replies. 


In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 27 Jul 2026 21:00:26 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Micky,
>
>>> Besides, why didn't you just respond to Pauls post, instead of jamming
>>> your response to him into your reply to me ?
>>
>> I think it is much more clear to reply to everyone in the same post,
>> instead of making people look through scrattered posts to see the whole
>> picture.
>
>The only thing you can hope to gain is to preclude the inevitable branching 
>of the thread by a single post - while creating confusion about whom you are 
>actually talking to.  Well done. /s
>
>>>> "Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction
>>>
>>> In your case ?   No.  You're gu essing like a hunter uses buckshot :
>>> you don't really need to aim, *something* should hit the target,
>>> right ?
>>
>> I'm sorry you can't follow the logic.
>
>Follow *wat* logic ?
>
>You have claimed you used it, but somehow never told us about what, 
>according to you, that logic looks like.  iow, there is nothing to follow 
>for me/us.
>
>> As I said, I had not tried the other two browsers yet.
>
>You also said you *did* use them, and from it did draw the conclusion Google 
>must be feeding Firefox different search-result pages.  Remember ?
>
>>>> Plainly I thought the change was in Google,
>>>
>>> Funny that : multiple possibilities, but there you only have a
>>> single guess.
>>
>> It's normal to have a primary guess.  I'm sorry you don't think
>> so.
>
>Sorry kiddo, but you can't call a single guess primary.  For that you need 
>/at least/ two of them.   So, where are the other ones - secondary, tertiary 
>and so on ?
>
>Oh, wait, I already gave you a bunch of other guesses ... Including two with 
>a high probability - one of which, how Firefox alerts you to redirects, you 
>actually found some info about and posted a link to.
>
>>>> I know that. But something changed.
>>>
>>>Possibly.
>>
>> What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no
>> redirect messages and now there are. Something changed.
>
>Well, I already told you at least twice that it just might be just your 
>perception that changed.   You have not disproven it in any way.  You also 
>have not provided proof for anything else.
>
>iow, you're /still/ guessing ...
>
>>>> I didn't change any settings.
>>>
>>>... that you know of.
>>
>> I didn't change any settings.
>>
>>> You might just have mashed the "yes" button below a question you did
>>> not comprehend.  You might even have forgotten that you changed
>>> something somewhere (and changed it back) not aware of its side-
>>> effects.
>>
>> None of that happened.
>
>How would you know ?   Because you can't remember it ?  Yeah, thats 
>certainly proof. /s
>
>Kiddo, you throw random and far-fetched guesses around like there is no 
>tomorrow, but when I present you with a possibility that has happened quite 
>often you offhandedly reject it.  Great going.
>
>And no, I'm not saying that that is what actually happened, but its in a 
>helpdesks top-ten of "my 'puter suddenly stopped working, but I didn't do 
>nuthin" causes.
>
>>>> I know that. But something changed.
>>>
>>>Possibly.
>>
>> What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no
>> redirect messages and now there are. Something changed. You just
>> want to take issue with everything I say.   Why is that?
>
>An old saying: "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
>
>I already explained the above to you.  Its upto you to try to understand.
>
>Micky, you know little-to-nothing about your problem, but you already 
>somehow know who must have done it and what it specifically can't be.  The 
>only thing you expect from me is to explain to you *how* what you have 
>determined must have happened has actually come to be.
>
>Thats not going to happen.
>
>Bottom line: by now you should know what the cause of your "problem" is and 
>how to "fix" it.
>
>Goodbye.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33411

micky,

> No new points so no new replies.

LOL.

Besides that being a 'contradictio in terminis', you've been pointed out 
that your claim of using logic isn't supported by anything (least of all an 
actual usage of logic), and therefore there is nothing for us to follow.

I would call that a new point, wouldn't you ?

Besides that one you have been given a few others, like my (you)"None of 
that happened.", (me)"How would you know ?".  But lets not forget my "one of 
which, how Firefox alerts you to redirects".

But hey, you do you and reject everything that you don't like to hear.  If 
that makes you happy than you're welcome to do so.

... there is a consequence though: when people notice how you scatter-gun 
guesses around while not doing the slightest to substanciate them, and when 
you do not get agreement to whatever bounces around in that head of yours 
you demand that we prove the opposite - effectivily doing your work for 
you - they will come to regard you as a nuissance and put you into their 
"ignore" lists.

In fact, I did that quite some time ago, but wanted to check if something 
changed (you grew up) and you could be "released" from it.  Alas, no. 
Perhaps next time.


Kiddo, you are either a moron who doesn't recognise logic when it hits you 
in the face*, or you're a troll trying to get us to waste time on your "I 
have no clue, help me" bullshittery.

* and refuses to, even when you have all the data at your fingertips, do his 
own inspection(s) - another "point" you have refused to respond to**.

** don't think I didn't notice the times when you did that.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33381

On 07/27/2026 10:43 AM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:34:40 +0200,
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Micky,
>>
>>>>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul in Houston TX,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a
>>>>>>> notification that a redirect has been blocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not
>>>>> using Firefox, right?
>>>>
>>>> When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote
>>>> stuff from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).
>>>
>>> The double > that was in front of the quoted words did not make clear
>>> to whom I was replying?
>>
>> No, it didn't.  It just made you look like an inattentive person.
>>
>> Besides, why didn't you just respond to Pauls post, instead of jamming you
>> response to him into your reply to me ?
> 
> I think it is much more clear to reply to everyone in the same post,
> instead of making people look through scrattered posts to see the whole
> picture.
> 
>> Something stinks here, and it aint my socks.
>>
>>> "Guess" is a figure of speech.  It was a logical deduction
>>
>> In your case ?   No.  You're gu essing like a hunter uses buckshot : you
>> don't really need to aim, *something* should hit the target, right ?
> 
> I'm sorry you can't follow the logic.
> 
>> The problem is that you are oblivious to the fact that we need to go thru
>> *all* those buckshot pellets, checking if they hit anything.  Thats quite
>> tiresome to anyone who tries to help you.
>>
>>> It was a logical deduction that they are not doing it now since
>>> I tried google search in those other two browsers and I didn't
>>> get a redirect messsage in my new tab.
>>
>> And even there you used the buckshot-guesses appproach - expecting us to
>> figure out what might be the actual cause.  Nonwithstanding that you have
>> two other browsers and could (at least attempt to) figure it out for
>> yourself.
> 
> As I said, I had not tried the other two browsers yet.  That's one of
> the advantages of answering eveyone in the same post  Paul won't read a
> short reply to him only and start suggesting I try other browsers, when
> he can see further down in this same post that later I did that.
> 
>>>> I suggest you think back to that time and try to figure out everything
>>>> that got changed.  Perhaps it was due to a Firefox update.
>>>
>>> Plainly I thought the change was in Google,
>>
>> Funny that : multiple possibilities, but there you only have a single guess.
> 
> It's normal to have a primary guess.  I'm sorry you don't think so.
> 
>> ... and although you had the tools (two browsers next to Firefox) to figure
>> that guess out for yourself* you stil expect us to come up with the answer.
>>
>> * a simple comparision of the HTML "sourcecode" (limited to a specific "A"
>> tag) gotten from your different browsers have would likely have sufficed.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you, unknowingly, changed the setting yourself.  Perhaps
>>>> you never noticed, until you did and you now notice it every time.
>>>
>>> I didn't change any settings.
>>
>> ... that you know of.
> 
> I didn't change any settings.
> 
>> You might just have mashed the "yes" button below a question you did not
>> comprehend.  You might even have forgotten that you changed something
>> somewhere (and changed it back) not aware of its side-effects.
> 
> None of that happened.
> 
>>>> And do take heed of the words of a wise man (most likely a
>>>> statistican) : correlation does not equal causation.  iow, do not
>>>> jump to conclusions.
>>>
>>> I know that. But something changed.
>>
>> Possibly.
> 
> What do you mean "possibly"?  Before 2 weeks ago there were no redirect
> messages and now there are. Something changed. You just want to take
> issue with everything I say.   Why is that?
> 
>> And one of those changes could be, as I already mentioned, your
>> perception (iow: your puter didn't change at all).
> 
> I think it's much more likely that your perception of the situation is
> incorrect.
> 
>>>> Did you perhaps disable JS ?
>>>
>>> My JS ia on.
>>
>> That means that, in line with my earlier explanation, Google should not need
>> to provide search-result page links pointing to themselves (and than
>> redirecting to the actual target).
> 
> Since the results are not as that predicts, apparently your earlier
> explanation is wrong or inapplicable.  Why am I not surprised?
> 
>> And fyi, they do not want to use that method, as its too easy to tamper
>> with - as you told us you are now doing with that add-on of yours.
> 
> Too many pronouns.  Do you mean that google does not want me to use an
> add-on to bypass the need to click yes on the redirect message?  Are you
> telling me I shouldn't do it becaues Google doesn't want me to?
> 
>>>> There is another problem though : you wrote that the add-on would
>>>> just extract the actual URL from the one thats returned on Googles
>>>> search-result page.
>>>
>>> That sentence was in quotes. IIRC it came from ASI.
>>
>> And "ASI" is ment to signify ... what ?
> 
> Artificial Semi-Intelligence.
> 
>> But it doesn't really matter.  It (rewriting the links) just happens to be
>> what I did myself all those years ago, so I can easily imagine an add-on
>> doing the same.
>>
>> iow, my question still stands : why/how would you get Firefox redirect popup
>> messages when the Google result-page links are rewritten to be directly to
>> the target webpage ?
> 
> "links are rewritten to be directly to the target webpage"  Maybe that
> assumption is false.  You've had plenty of reason by now to think it's
> false and you are still assuming it's true, so don't criticize me as you
> did above for having a "single guess". You're doing the same thing I did
> except you're continuing to hold your assumption longer.
> 
>>>>> Could this be regional?  Or maybe google just doesn't like me.
>>>>
>>>> Again: stop making wild guesses.  Or at least stop posting them.
>>>
>>> Regional was a reasonable guess.  The second one was meant to be
>>> humorous.  I'm sorry that you don't share my sense of humor.
>>
>> That "Regional" was (again) a wild guess.  There is nothing pointing to it,
>> and you (again) have got zero to show for it.  Its pretty-much worthless.
> 
> There doesn't have to be anything at hand pointing to it.  A decent
> debugger takes note of issues that mattered in other situations.  Since
> regionality does matter in several other situation, it was a reasonable
> guess and your insistence that it was wild after I said it was not is
> just evidence of your nasty nature.  And rejecting possibilities out of
> hand makes me wonder if you were good at your job.
>>
>> As for your "maybe google just doesn't like me" ? Its of the same quality.
>> My guess was that you're possibly someone who sees conspiracy theories
>> everywhere.  You would not be the first one...
> 
> I told you it was humor. I guess you don't understand humor.  What a
> surprise.
> 
>>>>> Is it that google itself is only using redirect for FF,
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely.  Again, It makes no sense from a corporate point of view.
>>>>
>>>> But hey, find yourself a 'puter with Chrome and/or Edge on it and check
>>>> it out for yourself.
>>>
>>> I did that and I gave the result.  Only for FF was there a redirect
>>> message. That's why I just asked "Is it that google itself is only
>>> using redirect for FF?"
>>
>> No, you didn't do that.  The only thing you've told us that Firefox gives
>> redirect warnings, while the other two do not.
> 
> Again you're using too many pronouns.  3 paragraphs up you say "check IT
> out" and then just now you say "you didn't do THAT".   Maybe you can
> explain the difference betwee IT and THAT?
>>
>> Goddamn man, you even told us that that could be because the other two
>> simply do not give redirect warnings.
>>
>> iow, all three browser could easily get the same webpage, with only Firefox
>> warning you about the redirects.  Is that so hard to understand ?
> 
> It sounds like a wild guess to me.
> 
>> But again, I suggest you open the HTML "sourcecode" in Firefox and at least
>> one other browser you have, and compare them (to what Firefox shows).  That
>> should give you your answer.
> 
> I don't care that much.  I barely care at all.  I was happy to
> participate in a discussion about this, but since it's working for me,
> that's what matters.
> 
> It never mattered much. I started the thread to help people, not to
> understand the inside workings of redirects.
> 
>>> I have to learn more about the similarity and difference between
>>> redirect and reload/refresh.
>>
>> The difference is easy : A redirect loads another webpage, a refesh re-loads
>> the current one.
> 
> Okay, but it doesn't answer whether that about:config setting,
> accessibility.blockautorefresh, applies to both since only "refresh" was
> in its name, not redirect. I suspect it does not.
> 
>> ... although at least one of the "refresh" methods can redirect to another
>> webpage.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>>
> Micky

For continuity and clarity. It is always better to respond directly to 
the post of the person, rather than mixing multiple responses to 
different persons in a longer thread. Doing so, provides both you and 
the person replied to continue the conversation(back and forth) and 
snipping unnecessary content.

The majority of persons look for replies to their specific posts, rather 
than navigating multiple posts with varied discussion and 
often(non-snipped digression).

Try to make it easier for everyone...and you'll get the best response.

-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33423

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:45:22 -0400,
"....winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 07/27/2026 10:43 AM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:34:40 +0200,
>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Micky,
>>>
>>>>>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul in Houston TX,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have redirects blocked in my browsers and rarely see a
>>>>>>>> notification that a redirect has been blocked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you used google search in the past week?   Aha, you're not
>>>>>> using Firefox, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you respond to someone (me, R.Wieser) make sure that you quote
>>>>> stuff from that person, and not from the grandparent (Paul).
>>>>
>>>> The double > that was in front of the quoted words did not make clear
>>>> to whom I was replying?
>>>.......
>>>
>> Micky
>
>For continuity and clarity. It is always better to respond directly to 
>the post of the person, rather than mixing multiple responses to 
>different persons in a longer thread. Doing so, provides both you and 
>the person replied to continue the conversation(back and forth) and 
>snipping unnecessary content.
>
>The majority of persons look for replies to their specific posts, rather 
>than navigating multiple posts with varied discussion and 
>often(non-snipped digression).
>
>Try to make it easier for everyone...and you'll get the best response.

My complements on a criticsm that criticises an action, rather than the
person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33400

On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:03:09 -0400, micky wrote:

> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links

I use Startpage.com. Have been for years. In the beginning they were an
alternative to Scroogle, but not that long ago I learned Startpage
combines the searches of Google and Bing.

> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
> another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
> though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
> appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
> (google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs".

I block those with Pi-Hole.

> Other
> things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
> important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
> to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
> a second time in a second tab.  

Have you tried Startpage.com?

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33422

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:50:03 +0200, "s|b"
<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:03:09 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>> You may have noticed by now that clicking on Google search links
>
>I use Startpage.com. Have been for years. In the beginning they were an
>alternative to Scroogle, but not that long ago I learned Startpage
>combines the searches of Google and Bing.
>
>> sometimes or always makes you stop at a page to "permit" redirection to
>> another page, even though you clicked on it in the first place and even
>> though it never did this before.  "The "redirect notice" page usually
>> appears because Google wraps outbound links with a tracking parameter
>> (google.com/url) to gather analytics and scan for malicious URLs".
>
>I block those with Pi-Hole.

Well one can do that with random occasional redirects, but Google search
in Firefox is sending a redirect EVERY time one clicks on a search
result and tries to open the link in a new tab. I don't want open the
link in the same tab, because then I'll have to go Back to see the other
search results. I prefer to use a new tab and they all generate
redirects. 

>> Other
>> things scan for malicious urls so I'm guessing it's the tracking that's
>> important to google.   I don't care if they track me, but I don't want
>> to waste time clicking again, or learn a new habit, that I have to click
>> a second time in a second tab.  
>
>Have you tried Startpage.com?

No, but I will tomorrow. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web