4 ms·
Interesting that your alice/wonderland example works. Would've thought Google would try to prevent that.
by dx034 10y ago
Interesting that your alice/wonderland example works. Would've thought Google would try to prevent that.
- Sacho 10y agoI don't think they can - iirc the hash isn't sent to the server, so to it this looks like any other normal query.
- lucb1e 10y agoWell sure they can, how do you think the search results for "alice" are obtained? It gets sent to the server, just not upon first load but using Javascript. This Javascript could check for another query being present in the query string, or (less reliably) the server could in the referrer.
- baby 10y agothe server doesn't have access to anything following the hashtag. This is only accessible on the client side via javascript. Javascript that you do not have unless the browser send the first request.
- lucb1e 10y agoThat's what I said: > how do you think the search results for "alice" are obtained? It gets sent to the server, just not upon first load but using Javascript.
- qeternity 10y agoWhere do you think the initial js comes from? The "wonderland" query.
- lucb1e 10y agoI know but the comment I was responding to said Google couldn't possibly know about the duplicate parameter. Well, here you have it, they can. Not at first, but still before displaying the results.
- comboy 10y agoWhy all the downvotes? I think he means that it could prevent the alice query, not the wonderland.
- onion2k 10y agoAs far as Google are concerned it makes no difference if the query is a GET variable in the URL or a hash fragment that their JS code sends as a query after the search page is loaded. They both mean "load Google Search with this parameter from the URL".
- diamondo25 10y agoDon't forget that the hash part is client sided; Google doesn't know about it until the page is loaded.