Click a link and need to go back 10x to get back. Yes, I enjoy the footballs.
is there by any chance like a ublock filter specific for this?
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
916 points (98.9% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35045 readers
178 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You can right click (long press on mobile) to skip back to the page that took you there
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.
I don't see evidence of them skipping back two pages past the point in history that redirects which is what prompted my comment.
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.
As the screenshot illustrates, the redirects have been repeated many times to thwart that strategy.
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
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.
I usually right click the back button and go 2 entries back. Done.
Microsoft also does this a lot on some of their sites.
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
I just default to opening in a new tab because of shitty UX like this
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.
load more comments
(17 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
I don't understand why browsers support this "functionality".
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
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Couldn't be me. Opening links in a new tab master race
Middle click is muscle memory. Has been for 20 years.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Three things.
-
Yes. Sometimes this is malice. Sometimes this is an attempt to drive impressions and page views.
-
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.
-
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Oh man I hate this shit so much.
Added to my blocked websites
Firefox should really implement a feature that hides this bullshit from the previous sites menu
view more: next ›