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

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13302

Re: Firefox bad design decisions?

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 3 May 2025 13:05:41 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

>> I'm having trouble comprehending how inefficient your process must be
>> compared to what everyone else likely uses when running searches.
> 
> You click on hundreds of links in a search. 

Maybe not hundreds, but if I'm seeking out a complex, interpretive search
result to grasp an understanding of Nagumo's Dilemma, it will take scores.

> How many at a time can *YOU* view?  Yep, just 1.  

Of course. We agree that you can only view one result at any given time. 

> All those other tabs you open sit there idle
> until you get around to viewing them, but when viewing them then you
> aren't simultaneously viewing other tabs.

Doesn't your Firefox browser employ intelligent background preloading?

>   You have the program open more docs than you can view.  

Unless the website itself hinders preloads with lazy-loading strategies, 
doesn't Firefox balance performance and resource usage via preloading?

> You end up opening tabs that end up not pertinent or duplicate other docs you opened.

As I had explained to Mark Lloyd, your searches are perhaps of the more
definitive form such as "How many time zones does China have?" while mine
are more of the form of "What is happening in the world right now?"

>> Let's assume we both run a google search & let's assume we both found 20
>> hits which seem like they'll be useful (the actual number doesn't matter).
>> 
>> So I controlclick on 20 links (so that's 20 clicks) & then I focus, one at
>> a time, on each tab (so that's another 20 clicks) each of which was
>> preloaded (so I don't have to wait) & then I decide I only need one tab so
>> now, with the extension, I right click on the one tab I want to keep to
>> select "Close Other Tabs."
> 
> So, your objective is to have the docs preloaded eliminating the time to
> load those docs when you choose to select a tab.  That assumes a lot,
> like none of the docs intercede with a prompt before they let you see
> their web doc, that a doc takes a shorter time for response from the
> server than how long for when you visit the tab, that you have gobs of
> memory for gobs of tabs to consume with tabs that even you admit turn
> out to be unwanted, that you do NOT allow the web browser to "sleep" the
> idle tabs since it's going to take you time to read through all the
> other tabs, and so on.

While many web sites implement lazy loading (which won't happen in the
background) Firefox has about:config "network.prefetch-next" settings
which load web resources even before you click on the search links.

There's also about:config "network.dns.disablePrefetch" DNS prefetching,
and "browser.urlbar.speculativeConnect.enabled" and even the long-winded
"browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.improvesearch.topSiteSearchShortcuts.prefetch".

I want as much "work" to be done in the background as Firefox possibly can.
If you know of other better ways to improve FF's bg prefetch, let me know.

> Plus, you just said that after preloading those tabs that you eventually
> visit them to decide you don't want or need their content, but you leave
> them open until you find a tab with the content you want.  Well, you
> were already on the tab you decided you didn't want, so why not close
> that tab when you were there?  Why wait until later to do cleanup?  Just
> middle-click on the tab close it when you found it didn't have what you
> want.

I think you're assuming a simple search result such as whether it was
Barber or Lanphier who downed the Betty bomber over Bougainville jungles.

Unlike a simple search such as that above, my search results tend to
contain conflicting accounts due to lack of definitive evidence such as
what Fred Noonan's role was in the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.

Essentially, there is a contrast in searches for factual unknowns with
searches whose results are shrouded in uncertainty and subject to ongoing
debate due to missing or ambiguous information. The dichotomy results in
fundamentally different types of search methods - one aiming for a singular
truth, the other navigating a landscape of competing possibilities.
 
> Your scenario dictates that only 1 tab is wanted, and you've wasted time
> opening tabs you end up deciding later are unwanted.

A search to understand the contrast between Yamaguchi's dilemma versus
Nagumo's dilemma requires exploring a complex interplay of historical
facts, strategic considerations, psychological pressures, and subsequent
interpretations to understand the difficult situation they faced and the
choices they made. 

Searches to better understanding pivotal events in history require looking
at search results through multiple lenses, where your searches seem to be
more of a factual nature such as at what precise point in time did Nagumo
and Yamaguchi each make the fateful decision that they eventually made.

Same topic. Same location. Same battle. Same side. Same ships. Same day. 
Yet, a completely different number of tabs are required to understand it.

> 
>> That's 42 clicks for me.
> 
> Your way:
> 1. 20 clicks on 20 search hits to open 20 tabs. (*)

I'm not sure why I need to defend my search topics which necessitates
analyzing events through multiple lenses, moving beyond purely factual
searches for precise timings, so I will stop defending them to you.

You do your searches how you like to do them.
I'll do mine the way I like to do them.

Luckily, this problem was solved a few days ago with suggested extensions.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close-other-tabs-menu/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close-tabs-right/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/close-tabs-left/

Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-04-30 00:54 -0400
  Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-30 01:00 -0500
    Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-04-30 02:24 -0400
      Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Dave Royal <dave@dave123royal.com> - 2025-04-30 07:53 +0100
        Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-04-30 08:18 -0700
        Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:24 -0400
          Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-05-01 09:25 +0200
            Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 04:39 -0400
          Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-01 12:35 +0100
            Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 11:47 -0400
          Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:31 +0000
            Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 14:48 -0400
              Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:26 +0000
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-03 19:02 +0000
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-04 02:28 -0400
          Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-01 14:13 -0500
            Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-02 03:26 -0400
              Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-02 08:30 +0100
              Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-02 05:16 -0500
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-02 05:18 -0500
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 13:05 -0500
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-04 03:46 -0400
                Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-03 04:38 -0400
      Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-30 04:45 -0500
      Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-04-30 21:11 +1000
  Re: Firefox bad design decisions? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-29 23:48 -0700
  Re: Firefox bad design decisions? "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-04-30 16:15 +0000
  Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-04-30 10:18 -0700
  Re: Firefox bad design decisions? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-30 20:00 +0000
    Re: Firefox bad design decisions? "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-04-30 21:26 +0000
      Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:36 -0400
        Re: Firefox bad design decisions? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-05-01 16:12 +0000
        Re: Firefox bad design decisions? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-01 13:49 -0500
  Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 00:04 +0000
    Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Wolf Greenblatt <wolf@greenblatt.net> - 2025-05-01 02:39 -0400
      Re: Firefox “bad” design decisions? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-05-01 09:52 +0200

csiph-web