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

Groups > comp.misc > #13219 > unrolled thread

Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it).

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 01:47 -0600
    Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2017-02-27 10:48 +0100
      Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2017-02-27 21:08 +0000
    Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2017-02-27 09:49 +0000
    Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-02-27 10:50 +0000
      Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2017-02-27 12:45 -0500
        Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 20:29 -0600
          Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:34 +0000
            Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Pham Nuwen <phamnuwen@example.com> - 2017-02-28 08:41 -0800
              Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2017-03-03 21:55 +0000
                Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2017-03-14 16:49 +0000
      Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Kerry Imming <kcimming@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 12:00 -0500
        Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-03-16 18:09 +0000
          Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Kerry Imming <kcimming@pobox.com> - 2017-03-16 13:53 -0500
            Re: Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it). Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-03-16 18:58 +0000

#13219 — Web design, page cache (or what ever you call it).

WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??

Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it) 
so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a 
dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?

By the time I catch on, it often turns out that there are hundreds of 
replications of the current page, and no infrequently, NO route back.

I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.

A previously favored blog "americanthinker.com" is about to be the trial 
case.
-- 
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13221

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:47:37 -0600, Larry Sheldon
<lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:

>WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
>
> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it) 
> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a 
> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?
>
> By the time I catch on, it often turns out that there are hundreds of 
> replications of the current page, and no infrequently, NO route back.
>
> I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.
>
> A previously favored blog "americanthinker.com" is about to be the trial 
> case.

I share your concerns.
In many cases, I open links in a new tab (Ctrl+LeftClick).
That helps.
-- 
Kees Nuyt

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

#13225

Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 01:47:37 -0600, Larry Sheldon
> <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
>>
>> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it) 
>> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a 
>> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?
>>
>> By the time I catch on, it often turns out that there are hundreds of 
>> replications of the current page, and no infrequently, NO route back.
>>
>> I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.
>>
>> A previously favored blog "americanthinker.com" is about to be the trial 
>> case.
> 
> I share your concerns.
> In many cases, I open links in a new tab (Ctrl+LeftClick).
> That helps.

Or middle click, push the scroll wheel in.

You can also use "History" to see a list & select a previous page.

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

#13222

On 2017-02-27, Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
> WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
>
> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it) 
> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a 
> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?
>
> By the time I catch on, it often turns out that there are hundreds of 
> replications of the current page, and no infrequently, NO route back.
>
> I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.
>
> A previously favored blog "americanthinker.com" is about to be the trial 
> case.

The concept of a 'page' as a discrete unique arrangement of content just
like the pages in a book or magazine, is passé.  Dynamic content is the
thing.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

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

#13223

Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
> WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
> 
> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it) 
> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a 
> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?

Usually it is simple incompetence.

This is often caused by using Javascript onclick handlers to do "links"
(even though HTML has a perfectly good link tag in the <a> tag) and
unless they also go to extra effort to update the back button records
from the javascript code, you get a broken back button.

But the "cache" has nothing to do with it.  The back button is not a
"go back in the cache" button.  It is just a list of all the past URL
links you clicked upon in that tab/window.

> I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.

They are, and skipping them is often the only recourse, given that many
have no one competent creating them in the first place.

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

#13224

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Rich wrote:

> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
>>
>> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it)
>> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a
>> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?
>
> Usually it is simple incompetence.
>
> This is often caused by using Javascript onclick handlers to do "links"
> (even though HTML has a perfectly good link tag in the <a> tag) and
> unless they also go to extra effort to update the back button records
> from the javascript code, you get a broken back button.
>
> But the "cache" has nothing to do with it.  The back button is not a
> "go back in the cache" button.  It is just a list of all the past URL
> links you clicked upon in that tab/window.
>
>> I am abut to declare such pages to be malway and block them.
>
> They are, and skipping them is often the only recourse, given that many
> have no one competent creating them in the first place.
>
>
I've yet to find one of value.  One reason you notice the back button 
isn't working is because you realize you aren't interested, and try to get 
back from where you came.

If it was an interesting page, you might get lost in the content, and then 
when you want to move on, just move to another site.  But when the content 
is bad, the immediate reaction is to go back to where you came, after all, 
you were only curious about the site.

   Michael

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

#13226

On 2/27/2017 11:45, Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Rich wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> WHY?  WHY!?  WHY!!????!??
>>> Why do page designers pollute the page cache (or what ever you call it)
>>> so that when a person trying to do use do useful work and back out of a
>>> dead end by using the "back arrow" button, the same page loads?
>>
>> Usually it is simple incompetence.
>>
>> This is often caused by using Javascript onclick handlers to do "links"
>> (even though HTML has a perfectly good link tag in the <a> tag) and
>> unless they also go to extra effort to update the back button records
>> from the javascript code, you get a broken back button.
>>
>> But the "cache" has nothing to do with it.  The back button is not a
>> "go back in the cache" button.  It is just a list of all the past URL
>> links you clicked upon in that tab/window.

Good to know for those of us who honor Truth, but functionally, when in 
{USERMODE}, it is functionally a distinction without a difference.

>>> I am abut to declare such pages to be "malware" and block them.
>>
>> They are, and skipping them is often the only recourse, given that many
>> have no one competent creating them in the first place.
>>
> I've yet to find one of value.  One reason you notice the back button
> isn't working is because you realize you aren't interested, and try to
> get back from where you came.

In my case, I run across it most frequently in respected blogs, where in 
the reading of a well-researched article I encounter a foot-note-like or 
parenthetical comment (or even a genuine foot note).
It is a facility that should be a vast improvement over the old way 
where a stack of books and magazines and a flurry of sticky notes form a 
crumb-like back trail that fails badly if there are many forks involved.

> If it was an interesting page, you might get lost in the content, and
> then when you want to move on, just move to another site.  But when the
> content is bad, the immediate reaction is to go back to where you came,
> after all, you were only curious about the site.

Or, as I have indicated, the content is good, but deeply nested.

There is a way of managing this, but it is an unholy recoures to the 
stack of documents-and-sticky-notes technique of old--invoked by 
remembering to NEVER "click" on a link, but rather to always (in 
Firefox™, anyway) "right click and select 'open in new tab'".

-- 
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

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

#13227

Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a way of managing this, but it is an unholy recoures to the 
> stack of documents-and-sticky-notes technique of old--invoked by 
> remembering to NEVER "click" on a link, but rather to always (in 
> Firefox?, anyway) "right click and select 'open in new tab'".

Or middle button click - which means the same, only without the need to
point at and pick a menu option.

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

#13228

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a way of managing this, but it is an unholy recoures to the 
>> stack of documents-and-sticky-notes technique of old--invoked by 
>> remembering to NEVER "click" on a link, but rather to always (in 
>> Firefox?, anyway) "right click and select 'open in new tab'".
>
> Or middle button click - which means the same, only without the need to
> point at and pick a menu option.

Or Ctrl-leftclick, because few mice come with proper middle buttons
these days and some scrollwheels like to scroll when you're trying to
click.

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

#13262

Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:41:25 -0800, Pham Nuwen wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is a way of managing this, but it is an unholy recoures to the 
>>> stack of documents-and-sticky-notes technique of old--invoked by 
>>> remembering to NEVER "click" on a link, but rather to always (in 
>>> Firefox?, anyway) "right click and select 'open in new tab'".
>>
>> Or middle button click - which means the same, only without the need to
>> point at and pick a menu option.
>
> Or Ctrl-leftclick, because few mice come with proper middle buttons
> these days and some scrollwheels like to scroll when you're trying to
> click.
>

Or, in case you prefer keyboard-only surfing, type F and whatever
digits/letters you see highlighted on top of the link. (Needs
Pentadactyl addon on Firefox or cVim extension on Chromium.)

-- 
:q!

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

#13313

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 21:55:52 +0000, Kara M'bola wrote:

> Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:41:25 -0800, Pham Nuwen wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a way of managing this, but it is an unholy recoures to the
>>>> stack of documents-and-sticky-notes technique of old--invoked by
>>>> remembering to NEVER "click" on a link, but rather to always (in
>>>> Firefox?, anyway) "right click and select 'open in new tab'".
>>>
>>> Or middle button click - which means the same, only without the need
>>> to point at and pick a menu option.
>>
>> Or Ctrl-leftclick, because few mice come with proper middle buttons
>> these days and some scrollwheels like to scroll when you're trying to
>> click.
>>
>>
> Or, in case you prefer keyboard-only surfing, type F and whatever
> digits/letters you see highlighted on top of the link. (Needs
> Pentadactyl addon on Firefox or cVim extension on Chromium.)

 It's a problem with a lot of porno websites[1]. I don't think it's bad 
programming just deliberate policy to try to stop you leaving. In Opera, 
the solution is quite simple, just "lean on" the back button until the 
drop down list of previously visited pages appears (about 1 second or so) 
and pick the last one in the list that was *not* one of the many pages 
you didn't want to be stuck on. :-)

[1] I'm an adult male so yeah, I'll occasionally browse the odd porno 
website ('odd' being the operative word, the odder the better for the 
sake of maximum entertainment value), so get over it!

 Also, of course, there are so many 'innocent' search terms that will so 
readily take you to a porn website if you're a bit lackadaisical about 
checking the sample text provided with each link. It's so very easy to 
land up on a porno site by mistake these days that it's just not funny 
any more.

-- 
Johnny B Good

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

#13327

On 2/27/2017 4:50 AM, Rich wrote:
>
> This is often caused by using Javascript onclick handlers to do "links"
> (even though HTML has a perfectly good link tag in the <a> tag) and
> unless they also go to extra effort to update the back button records
> from the javascript code, you get a broken back button.
>

If you go to CNET's news.com site in Firefox and click on an article, 
you get an entry in your "Back" buffer as expected.  What I DON'T expect 
is to get additional links in the back buffer as I scroll down the page 
(which does happen).  In other words, I expect the back button to take 
me to the last link I CLICKED.

In my opinion this new behavior is wrong if for no other reason than 
it's inconsistent among web sites.

- Kerry

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

#13328

Kerry Imming <kcimming@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 4:50 AM, Rich wrote:
>>
>> This is often caused by using Javascript onclick handlers to do
>> "links" (even though HTML has a perfectly good link tag in the <a>
>> tag) and unless they also go to extra effort to update the back
>> button records from the javascript code, you get a broken back
>> button.
>>
> 
> If you go to CNET's news.com site in Firefox and click on an article,
> you get an entry in your "Back" buffer as expected.  What I DON'T
> expect is to get additional links in the back buffer as I scroll down
> the page (which does happen).  In other words, I expect the back
> button to take me to the last link I CLICKED.
> 
> In my opinion this new behavior is wrong if for no other reason than
> it's inconsistent among web sites.

That would be a new 'mis-feature' where they are abusing the javascript
API that allows manipulation of the "back button list" to stuff it with
things you never actually clicked upon.

That's a sneaky way to increase page views on the unsuspecting, because
when you 'back out' and go to a different page they see it as a fresh
retreival.

This is probably the next variant on the "unnecessarially split an
article up into 10 chunks to increase my page views and number of 'ad
impressions'" method that way too many sites also use.

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

#13329

On 3/16/2017 1:09 PM, Rich wrote:
>
> That would be a new 'mis-feature' where they are abusing the javascript
> API that allows manipulation of the "back button list" to stuff it with
> things you never actually clicked upon.
>
> That's a sneaky way to increase page views on the unsuspecting, because
> when you 'back out' and go to a different page they see it as a fresh
> retreival.
>
> This is probably the next variant on the "unnecessarially split an
> article up into 10 chunks to increase my page views and number of 'ad
> impressions'" method that way too many sites also use.
>

Thank you for the explanation.  When I first saw it I thought it was a 
browser bug.  In some cases the back button list is filled with 3 or 4 
of the same page.  I've gotten to where I automatically right-click on 
the back button to select from the drop-down list... but it's 
annoying...   that, and I need to install a video blocker of some sort.

- Kerry

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

#13330

Kerry Imming <kcimming@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 1:09 PM, Rich wrote:
>>
>> That would be a new 'mis-feature' where they are abusing the
>> javascript API that allows manipulation of the "back button list" to
>> stuff it with things you never actually clicked upon.
>>
>> That's a sneaky way to increase page views on the unsuspecting,
>> because when you 'back out' and go to a different page they see it
>> as a fresh retreival.
>>
>> This is probably the next variant on the "unnecessarially split an
>> article up into 10 chunks to increase my page views and number of
>> 'ad impressions'" method that way too many sites also use.
>>
> 
> Thank you for the explanation.  When I first saw it I thought it was
> a browser bug.  In some cases the back button list is filled with 3
> or 4 of the same page.  I've gotten to where I automatically
> right-click on the back button to select from the drop-down list... 
> but it's annoying...  that, and I need to install a video blocker of
> some sort.

You'll find that installing NoScript in default deny mode will prevent
nearly all of these mis-features from rearing their ugly heads.

Most sites do still render content with all javascript blocked, and in
many cases they render better with JS off than with it on.  Some fail
to render but the content is present and turning off style sheets will
make it appear.

Some don't render at all, then it is your choice if you want to turn on
JS just to see the content.  Myself, if the site requires JS just to
see the content then its got a high bar to get over that most dont
meet, so most of those just get closed immediately.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web