6 ms·

Author here -- curious to hear HN's thoughts on if this should be fixed or is acceptable.

by jlrubin 11y ago

Terribledactyl 11y ago
I don't recall needing to copy and paste a search URL to someone in a long time, but maybe other people use it in their workflow. (maybe in jest I'll use http://lmgtfy.com http://lmgtfy.com) Interestingly enough in Safari on 10.11, the URL I see in the address bar when searching for "$x" is just "$x" but when I copy and paste "$x" into a text box I see my previous search in the url. I've noticed safari shortening to just the base recently but this feels a bit off.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...when I copy and paste "$x" into a text box... What do you mean by this? The following things fail to repro the issue for me on Firefox 41: * Open google.com * Type a search in the search box, press return. (get a #q=$SEARCH anchor) * Type another search in the search box, press return. (get a #q=SEARCH2 anchor) * * Go to google.com * Type in the search box, press return. (Same result as above.) * Paste text into the search box, press return. (Same result as above.)
  - jlrubin 11y ago
    It's a very safari specific thing. address bar reads [$x], where $x is search term, on copy you get a url.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > address bar reads [$x], where $x is search term, on copy you get a url. Yikes.
  - Terribledactyl 11y ago
    In safari, I searched for "dog" then "cat", in the Address Bar I only see "dog" or "cat", but when I copy "cat" I get https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dog&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=cat https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dog&ie=... If I do a new search from the bar I don't see dog, when I type "cat" into the google provided box in the page I get the above result.
- joshkpeterson 11y ago
  Image searches though.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    I just linked an image search in an HN comment yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459123 Deleted all the nonessential arguments by hand out of suspicion of something like this. Nice to know I'm not being too paranoid.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Not quite search-related but in my most common usage, I run across similar practices with copy/pasting URLs in general. Some friends and I have a running multi-person Hangout that we use as a sort of simplified chat room. It's obviously got none of the control of something like IRC but it's easier and more convenient for most of them. About half of us already have Hangouts on our phones by default (Android) and the iOS folks can install it and alternately, many of us keep Gmail open in a browser tab at work anyway. Getting to the point, we use the chat for just general BS throughout the day and we post a lot of links. I have a habit of seeing what I can strip off an article or other link before it doesn't resolve. But some chat participants are primarily phone users and don't often sit down with a laptop or desktop. Almost all of the links they post are these elongated strings that take up 4+ lines in the chat box and contain all sorts of Facebook references and other bits and pieces of the "path" they took to get to the actual article. I've mentioned it before but usually just get groans about how I'm paranoid/anal retentive. It's probably no big deal but on principle I don't like clicking on anything that essentially lets Facebook or some other network track the spread of links even when I'm not on Facebook. If I'm actively on that site or something similar, sure, they can go right ahead and track what I do but when I'm just sitting at work and want to click some news story a friend forwarded, I don't need all the referral links and tracking. The problem is (as has been mentioned above) a lot of people just don't think about what's in a URL and sorta just look at it like "that mess of gibberish text that points to the article or funny picture". The problem has only gotten worse as more people are primarily phone/mobile app users.
subnaught 11y ago
Just my knee-jerk opinion, but absolutely not acceptable. I can't see any way in which this could be construed as "expected behavior."
- dogma1138 11y ago
  I don't think google search URL's were ever designed to be shared nor linked directly so I don't really see an issue here. The original query is stored in case you want to track back on the auto-suggest would you rather they to store those in cookies or non-volatile browser storage? And while it's true that if you link some one an entire Google URL search URL you might leak the original query, but given all the other dark magic that is in the URL which can include your client type, version, location and other things (e.g. inter-service referrals if you go there from another google service like Google Maps) i think the original query is the least of your worries. And if you want to link a query well just use https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how to use google works just fine.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > I don't think google search URL's were ever designed to be shared nor linked directly... This is incredibly silly. URLs are how you get to a page. It's how The Web works! > The original query is stored in case you want to track back... That's what the History API is for. When you add an anchor-tag query, store the original state in the tab's history. > i think the original query is the least of your worries. Infoleaks are BAD. The least Google could do is use their URL rewriting powers to remove the original query when they add a query stored in the anchor-tag.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      > This is incredibly silly. URLs are how you get to a page. It's how The Web works! That's a very general and simplistic view of things, and we both know it's not true. While URL's were designed originally to only provide an address for a specific resource we all know they are also used for storage, user state management and many other things, again not ideal but in some cases unavoidable. Not to mention that URL's are not implicitly intended to be shared outside of the scope of your application you wouldn't link the 3 mile long URL that you get every time you login into your bank account would you? > That's what the History API is for. When you add an anchor-tag query, store the original state in the tab's history. Technically (best kind of not true) not true for the Google History API and even if it would be applicable for this it doesn't work in cases where you for example weren't signed in or explicitly blocking google tracking API's and services. Not to mention that making a API call every time you need to do something as basic as backtracking on your search is just pure insanity when it comes to resourcing. And if you are talking about the Chrome Page History API then why in god's name would i want a site to access it, not to mention it's not applicable in this case either. > Infoleaks are BAD. The least Google could do is use their URL rewriting powers to remove the original query when they add a query stored in the anchor-tag. Life is bad, if this was in a link which was automatically shared (although all those pin URL generators link 10 fold more data than Google) I would agree with you, otherwise not really this isn't a use case for the application.
chestnut-tree 11y ago
"...curious to hear HN's thoughts on if this should be fixed or is acceptable." I consider it unacceptable. Why does Google do this? Is it for the purpose of tracking users? This feels like a common problem with URLs. More and more sites send you onto other links while apppending some identifier to the URL. I frequently come across links shared by friends and colleagues where I can immediately see the referral site that was the source of the link (even though the destination of the link is different). Presumably this is yet another layer to the endless (but rarely questioned) tracking that has become the norm on the web.
sleet 11y ago
Workaround: Change your omnibox search engine query to https://www.google.com/#q=%s https://www.google.com/#q=%s (chrome terminology)
- sceutre 11y ago
  This. It not only fixes the article's complaint, but removes all the other metadata stuffed into the URL and just plain looks nicer.
abandonliberty 11y ago
I'm curious what's contained in the actual links in the results, and what happens when I share it with friends: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAahUKEwi6ncGf0ebIAhWHMgKHXT1Ahk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.test.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNG-HcyyrrotQ2wEGF6CkUfMSC6HQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
joopxiv 11y ago
In my opinion this is acceptable. It's probably even functional: the content of the first search might very well affect the results of the second search.

Author here -- curious to hear HN's thoughts on if this should be fixed or is acceptable.

by jlrubin 11y ago

Author here -- curious to hear HN's thoughts on if this should be fixed or is acceptable.

I don't recall needing to copy and paste a search URL to someone in a long time, but maybe other people use it in their workflow. (maybe in jest I'll use http://lmgtfy.com http://lmgtfy.com) Interestingly enough in Safari on 10.11, the URL I see in the address bar when searching for "$x" is just "$x" but when I copy and paste "$x" into a text box I see my previous search in the url. I've noticed safari shortening to just the base recently but this feels a bit off.

simoncion 11y ago
> ...when I copy and paste "$x" into a text box... What do you mean by this? The following things fail to repro the issue for me on Firefox 41: * Open google.com * Type a search in the search box, press return. (get a #q=$SEARCH anchor) * Type another search in the search box, press return. (get a #q=SEARCH2 anchor) * * Go to google.com * Type in the search box, press return. (Same result as above.) * Paste text into the search box, press return. (Same result as above.)
- jlrubin 11y ago
  It's a very safari specific thing. address bar reads [$x], where $x is search term, on copy you get a url.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > address bar reads [$x], where $x is search term, on copy you get a url. Yikes.
- Terribledactyl 11y ago
  In safari, I searched for "dog" then "cat", in the Address Bar I only see "dog" or "cat", but when I copy "cat" I get https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dog&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=cat https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dog&ie=... If I do a new search from the bar I don't see dog, when I type "cat" into the google provided box in the page I get the above result.
joshkpeterson 11y ago
Image searches though.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  I just linked an image search in an HN comment yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10459123 Deleted all the nonessential arguments by hand out of suspicion of something like this. Nice to know I'm not being too paranoid.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Not quite search-related but in my most common usage, I run across similar practices with copy/pasting URLs in general. Some friends and I have a running multi-person Hangout that we use as a sort of simplified chat room. It's obviously got none of the control of something like IRC but it's easier and more convenient for most of them. About half of us already have Hangouts on our phones by default (Android) and the iOS folks can install it and alternately, many of us keep Gmail open in a browser tab at work anyway. Getting to the point, we use the chat for just general BS throughout the day and we post a lot of links. I have a habit of seeing what I can strip off an article or other link before it doesn't resolve. But some chat participants are primarily phone users and don't often sit down with a laptop or desktop. Almost all of the links they post are these elongated strings that take up 4+ lines in the chat box and contain all sorts of Facebook references and other bits and pieces of the "path" they took to get to the actual article. I've mentioned it before but usually just get groans about how I'm paranoid/anal retentive. It's probably no big deal but on principle I don't like clicking on anything that essentially lets Facebook or some other network track the spread of links even when I'm not on Facebook. If I'm actively on that site or something similar, sure, they can go right ahead and track what I do but when I'm just sitting at work and want to click some news story a friend forwarded, I don't need all the referral links and tracking. The problem is (as has been mentioned above) a lot of people just don't think about what's in a URL and sorta just look at it like "that mess of gibberish text that points to the article or funny picture". The problem has only gotten worse as more people are primarily phone/mobile app users.

subnaught 11y ago

Just my knee-jerk opinion, but absolutely not acceptable. I can't see any way in which this could be construed as "expected behavior."

dogma1138 11y ago
I don't think google search URL's were ever designed to be shared nor linked directly so I don't really see an issue here. The original query is stored in case you want to track back on the auto-suggest would you rather they to store those in cookies or non-volatile browser storage? And while it's true that if you link some one an entire Google URL search URL you might leak the original query, but given all the other dark magic that is in the URL which can include your client type, version, location and other things (e.g. inter-service referrals if you go there from another google service like Google Maps) i think the original query is the least of your worries. And if you want to link a query well just use https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how to use google works just fine.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > I don't think google search URL's were ever designed to be shared nor linked directly... This is incredibly silly. URLs are how you get to a page. It's how The Web works! > The original query is stored in case you want to track back... That's what the History API is for. When you add an anchor-tag query, store the original state in the tab's history. > i think the original query is the least of your worries. Infoleaks are BAD. The least Google could do is use their URL rewriting powers to remove the original query when they add a query stored in the anchor-tag.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    > This is incredibly silly. URLs are how you get to a page. It's how The Web works! That's a very general and simplistic view of things, and we both know it's not true. While URL's were designed originally to only provide an address for a specific resource we all know they are also used for storage, user state management and many other things, again not ideal but in some cases unavoidable. Not to mention that URL's are not implicitly intended to be shared outside of the scope of your application you wouldn't link the 3 mile long URL that you get every time you login into your bank account would you? > That's what the History API is for. When you add an anchor-tag query, store the original state in the tab's history. Technically (best kind of not true) not true for the Google History API and even if it would be applicable for this it doesn't work in cases where you for example weren't signed in or explicitly blocking google tracking API's and services. Not to mention that making a API call every time you need to do something as basic as backtracking on your search is just pure insanity when it comes to resourcing. And if you are talking about the Chrome Page History API then why in god's name would i want a site to access it, not to mention it's not applicable in this case either. > Infoleaks are BAD. The least Google could do is use their URL rewriting powers to remove the original query when they add a query stored in the anchor-tag. Life is bad, if this was in a link which was automatically shared (although all those pin URL generators link 10 fold more data than Google) I would agree with you, otherwise not really this isn't a use case for the application.

chestnut-tree 11y ago

"...curious to hear HN's thoughts on if this should be fixed or is acceptable." I consider it unacceptable. Why does Google do this? Is it for the purpose of tracking users? This feels like a common problem with URLs. More and more sites send you onto other links while apppending some identifier to the URL. I frequently come across links shared by friends and colleagues where I can immediately see the referral site that was the source of the link (even though the destination of the link is different). Presumably this is yet another layer to the endless (but rarely questioned) tracking that has become the norm on the web.

sleet 11y ago

Workaround: Change your omnibox search engine query to https://www.google.com/#q=%s https://www.google.com/#q=%s (chrome terminology)

sceutre 11y ago
This. It not only fixes the article's complaint, but removes all the other metadata stuffed into the URL and just plain looks nicer.

abandonliberty 11y ago

I'm curious what's contained in the actual links in the results, and what happens when I share it with friends: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAahUKEwi6ncGf0ebIAhWHMgKHXT1Ahk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.test.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNG-HcyyrrotQ2wEGF6CkUfMSC6HQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

joopxiv 11y ago

In my opinion this is acceptable. It's probably even functional: the content of the first search might very well affect the results of the second search.