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

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    You can right click (long press on mobile) to skip back to the page that took you there

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s what OP has done; that’s what we’re seeing in this screenshot.

      The back button is highlighted. This list is the list of options OP gets when he right clicks the back button.

      • bitwolf@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t see evidence of them skipping back two pages past the point in history that redirects which is what prompted my comment.

  • terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Not sure about that site specifically, but others that’s done it to me was easy to get around. Most of them are thwarted with basically double clicking the back button.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      As the screenshot illustrates, the redirects have been repeated many times to thwart that strategy.

      • terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I get that, forgot to mention that clicking the back button very very fast is what usually works for me.

        Regardless, it’s annoying af

  • officermike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    206
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days 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
      81
      ·
      8 days 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
        27
        ·
        8 days 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
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 days 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

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I hate that this is even a feature in the web standard. A result of some massive corporate corruption for sure.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I recently looked into this after it seemed like Facebook messed with my back button on a private mobile window:

        Someone pointed out that it’s nice to have, for example, your email provider know that you probably want to go back for a message to your inbox instead of going back to the previous page.

        But what if browsers monitored which sites abused the feature and showed a pop-up when you click the back button, just like they offer to show you notifications? They could show you:

        This site has been reported to hijack the back button. Would you like to go back to the last domain that you visited?

        and offer to remember the setting.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days 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
      35
      ·
      8 days 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.

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days 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
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days 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).

          • gwen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 days ago

            like people who disable Javascript).

            i do that, and i found that a TON of microsoft & bank/work websites just refuse to do anything without it. i love the modern internet /s

          • ggppjj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days 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.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              I’ve been working in full stack for long enough to know that history manipulation is as much a part of the modern web as images and email. I’m not trying to be flippant, that’s just the state of the modern web. Single-page apps are here, and that’s a good thing. They’re being used badly, and that’s endemic to all features. So no, history manipulation is not “bad functionality,” though I admit it’s not fully baked in its current implementation.

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

                I accept that it’s how things are, I just personally feel as though the only way this feature could ever work as it does now is with the implementation it has now, and that the convenience of single page webapps that use history manipulation is not worth the insane annoyance of helping my grandma get out of websites that tell her that she has been hacked by the FBI.

      • deejay4am@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days 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.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          That would absolutely make everything worse, no question; the web should be more integrated, not less. We shouldn’t incentivize even more companies to silo off their content into apps.

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

            I think the word ‘app’ was being used in place of ‘webapp’ there, which is the general target audience for this feature.

            • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Yes, I think you’re correct, but using browsers to coerce the web back into static documents will result in companies creating their own apps so that they can continue to deliver experiences. And the past 10+ years has shown that users will absolutely follow them.

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

                Sorry, this comment was mainly just providing the previous user with a correction because they seemed to think that the other person that they were replying to was talking about forcing people to use phone apps, which I assume we all agree is bad and would likely work if there were a concentrated push for it.

                Concerning your points after “using the browser”: I want websites to use replaceState and manage their own intra-page navigation with a cookie. They can still intercept the back button as they do now, but they should only get the single history entry until they switch to a new page, if they ever do.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    8 days 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
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days 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
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days 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

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Try some different sorting options. I’ve found “Active” and “Hot” to be kind of shitty (though to be fair, I haven’t really used them in like 6 months so maybe they’re better).

          I usually go for “Top 6 Hours” or “Top 12 Hours” for stuff that’s not too old and relatively active.

      • ...m...@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        …and now you’ve hit upon my other peeve: (mostly shopping) sites coded to disable browsing links in a new tab…

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Perhaps it’s because I never raw dog the web, and using uBlock Origin on “medium mode” somehow fixes it, but I don’t think I have ever experienced that.

          I have experienced sites that block right clicking, and that has always infuriated me. But I was able to get a little FF extension that disables right click blocking on websites. Which is pretty useful for downloading videos on sites that try to stop you from downloading their videos (though some have wisened up and can completely disable the ability to save a video through that method. The “save video as” option is completely greyed out). yt-dlp usually works in those cases, or one of the countless web-based video downloaders… but still annoying.

          • ...m...@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            …ah, i may be conflating contextal menus with opening new tabs, since that’s the primary UI mode i use to do so: regardless, any kind of shenanigans which aim to disable application-level UI get under my skin…

      • Skyhighatrist@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        What’s worse is that YouTube sometimes doesn’t do that, i.e. when you hit back it shows the same list from the cache or something. It gives you hope and makes it worse on those occasions when it does fully refresh on back.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Youtube recommended videos does this. Not a huge issue because I can always search for the video myself but it’s annoying.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Ugh yes.

        Though on desktop I’ve completely switched over to using FreeTube, and I’ve been loving it. The order of the videos in the feed does not change. It’s great.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s not for this, of course. It’s because in the world of single page applications built in react and angular where there is no physical back, like no actual server page to go back to just JavaScript, you have to code in what the back button means. Even though there’s no server calls to ask for a new page. New page. Most people still expect that forward and back will still go forward and back in standard navigation.

      Sites like this it’s pretty clear that they just overwrite that with the last 20 calls to their own page, but the alternative is that single page applications would not be able to have forward or back functionality

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          8 days ago

          Great I’ll just add a unique guid to each path that is ignored and returns to the same place. You show me a 10 foot fence I’ll show you an 11 foot ladder.

          • hddsx@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            I mean, I get that. I was making a joke. But 12 ft fence? Load in sandbox and compare html. Your move.

              • hddsx@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                14 ft fence: Diff in html. If less than 10 lines different, ban.

                • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  15 ft ladder:

                  <div hidden>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  <?= rand() ?>
                  </div>
                  
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s a very “dumb” implementation of a generally useful feature. Browsers don’t keep track of how many times you’re redirected to the same site or try to consolidate the back-button list accordingly, but they certainly could. Wouldn’t be surprised if there was a plugin to this effect.

      • groet@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 days ago

        They actually do. To avoid infinite loops. If a URL redirects to the identical URL for more than ~5 times most browsers will refuse to load and show an error instead.

        That’s why sites like this will generate new URLs with the same content.

  • RedStrider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    I was just thinking about this.

    Super annoying because it can actually be fixed by using History.replaceState() over History.pushState().

    I guess the reason they do it is either to keep you stuck on their sucky site, or just incompetence.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I feel like when you’re talking corporations, hanlons razor needs to be reversed. Never attribute to stupidity what could be adequately explained by malice. We’ll call it Nolnahs razor.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          idk, it seems like with this being a company that generates revenue from “clicks” doing something that essentially makes a person refresh the page 20 times seems like a good decision to make

        • warbond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Big Hanlon fan, but I don’t think stupidity is enough to explain why the site behaves that way.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            I’m not a fan of Hanlon’s Razor, because I feel like people believe it to be some kind of steadfast law of the universe when in reality it’s just a “rule of thumb.” And honestly not even a great one imo.

            I feel like there are a whole lot of bad people that use the concept as cover to help them get away with the heinous shit they do. People who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Only the first time you visit in a while though.

      I think it’s taking you away to a login page, logging you in, then bringing you back.

      I can see the point if you were going to ask or answer a question, but 99% of the time you just want to see how somebody else didn’t get their problem solved by some random Indian guy who people assume works for Microsoft, who think the solution to everything is running “sfc /scannow” which has replaced chkdsk as the command most likely to take a long time, do nothing, and make the question asker go away without a solution to their problem.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      What helps with this is clicking links with mousewheeldown, I automatically opens in a new tab. Also MWD on the tab label will close it, so you don’t have to aim for the ‘x’.

      A mouse with thumb buttons is really handy as they do foreward and back, double clicking that gets you out of the issue caused in op

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Three things.

    1. Yes. Sometimes this is malice. Sometimes this is an attempt to drive impressions and page views.

    2. This can also be caused by poorly configured web applications that update in real time. If, say, some sports website is giving you real-time data about the game as it progresses, a poorly configured web application might be creating a dynamic URL for every change. When you access the older page, it will be instructed to take you to the most recent data, so pressing back is taking you to old data on that page, and then immediately realizing that data is old so refreshing it with the most relevant data.

    3. This is a super common misconfiguration in single page web applications. Domain.com will take you to an application that renders at domain.com/en-us/home. Pressing back takes you to domain.com, and guess what happens next?

    This is basically 99.99% of these cases. I would say if its on some shitty news site with 1000 ads that somehow sneak by AdBlock and UBlok Origin, it’s case 1. Otherwise, it’s case 2 or 3.

    The picture instance is either case 1 or 2.

      • mrvictory1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        MS makes a redirect to log you in, you can hit back button twice to escape. Bad design but not malice.

    • ajikeshi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      and neither case provides a service in a state that should be exposed to the outside. Either due to malice or incompetence.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Any website managed/developed by someone certified in the last decade or more knows not to do that.

      It’s absolutely malicious, both to drive SRO and to keep “accidental” clicks from backing out so quickly