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

  • officermike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

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

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

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Usually with this, it’s like 20 entries, so pushes everything else off.

        The ones where it’s only a couple entries mostly seem to be the ones where there’s multiple articles on a single page and it’s at least might be attempting to be helpful?

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      Aaargh for the state of todays internet

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

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

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

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

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

      • deejay4am@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

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

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

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

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

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

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

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

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

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

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

          • ggppjj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

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

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

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

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

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

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

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