5 ms·

Dang it. I noticed that my user agent was one of the biggest identifiers for me (1 in 200 users), and I realized it was because I was still on Chrome 76 while m

by oxguy3 7y ago

Dang it. I noticed that my user agent was one of the biggest identifiers for me (1 in 200 users), and I realized it was because I was still on Chrome 76 while most users were on Chrome 77. So, I finally restarted my browser to allow the update to happen. Well, apparently I leap-frogged to Chrome 78, which even fewer people are on. Now my user agent is shared by just 1 in 1400 users, and my fingerprint went from nearly-unique to unique. Go figure. :P

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
How does UA string having the exact number of the browser version in help the user? I'm guessing it doesn't, shouldn't the UA just say "Chrome". I guess it serves Google well though.
- cpeterso 7y ago
  If a server know the client's browser version, it can serve JS polyfills to older clients and smaller files without the polyfills to more recent clients. Here is a polyfill service hosted and maintained by the Financial Times: https://polyfill.io/v3/ https://polyfill.io/v3/
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Apart from IE5.5 I've only used polyfills against major browser number, do current polyfills really look at minor browser number?
- Dumbdo 7y ago
  It's helpful in web development, it allows you to target specific browser versions. For example if I use a new feature on my website which is only supported by recent browser versions, I can inform the user about the incompatibility and prevent complains. I also don't think Google needs that info, there's a million things to criticize them for but this is a bit silly.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    Feature detection is more reliable than version checking, as it can more correctly support a wider range of browsers (that you didn't think to version-test for). There might be some cases where that's tricky, but it's generally straightforward. Tools like https://modernizr.com/ https://modernizr.com/ can help with that.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    You don't think Google do browser fingerprinting? As a sibling comment suggests: feature detection seems superior.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  It's the biggest and most obvious thing to fix (especially with JS disabled), so clearly it's silly to worry about.
- marcthe12 7y ago
  Chrome with version is enough not the rest of the stuff.
pmoriarty 7y ago
That's not so bad. Only 1 in more than 200,000 have my browser's user agent (emacs-w3m). I wonder what the most common user agent is.
- marcthe12 7y ago
  Chrome 77 on Windows

by oxguy3 7y ago

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

How does UA string having the exact number of the browser version in help the user? I'm guessing it doesn't, shouldn't the UA just say "Chrome". I guess it serves Google well though.

cpeterso 7y ago
If a server know the client's browser version, it can serve JS polyfills to older clients and smaller files without the polyfills to more recent clients. Here is a polyfill service hosted and maintained by the Financial Times: https://polyfill.io/v3/ https://polyfill.io/v3/
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Apart from IE5.5 I've only used polyfills against major browser number, do current polyfills really look at minor browser number?
Dumbdo 7y ago
It's helpful in web development, it allows you to target specific browser versions. For example if I use a new feature on my website which is only supported by recent browser versions, I can inform the user about the incompatibility and prevent complains. I also don't think Google needs that info, there's a million things to criticize them for but this is a bit silly.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  Feature detection is more reliable than version checking, as it can more correctly support a wider range of browsers (that you didn't think to version-test for). There might be some cases where that's tricky, but it's generally straightforward. Tools like https://modernizr.com/ https://modernizr.com/ can help with that.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  You don't think Google do browser fingerprinting? As a sibling comment suggests: feature detection seems superior.
jakeogh 7y ago
It's the biggest and most obvious thing to fix (especially with JS disabled), so clearly it's silly to worry about.
marcthe12 7y ago
Chrome with version is enough not the rest of the stuff.

pmoriarty 7y ago

That's not so bad. Only 1 in more than 200,000 have my browser's user agent (emacs-w3m). I wonder what the most common user agent is.

marcthe12 7y ago
Chrome 77 on Windows