5 ms·

So they're using history.push() rather than history.replace(). I love the history API when it's used approprately, but it is a double-edged sword that has to b

So they're using history.push() rather than history.replace(). I love the history API when it's used approprately, but it is a double-edged sword that has to be used carefully. News sites injecting their homepage in history on an article sometimes make me wonder if it's worth it.

julianlam 6y ago
Of course it's worth it! You gained valuable insight on which sites utilise a particular dark pattern, and that they probably use others. I don't bother clicking on TechCrunch articles for this reason.
- DarthGhandi 6y ago
  It's a status page, doesn't seem to be a dark pattern intended to keep you engaged and garner clicks, more likely just badly written. If anything they'd probably want you not visiting it more.
- schrodinger 6y ago
  Incompetence, not malice. Who would dark pattern their status page to keep you on it longer—def an accident.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Why are there two comments back to back missing the fact they're obviously referring to this part of the comment: > News sites injecting their homepage in history on an article sometimes make me wonder if it's worth it. They even bring up a news site as an example.
  - dogecoinbase 6y ago
    I'm not going to assert actual malice, but I think that at Google's scale we can go further than incompetence to bare negligence.
  - tdy721 6y ago
    How about canary?
- pmontra 6y ago
  I don't bother clicking TechCrunch because it redirects to https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_cc-session_<a https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_... uuid> and one of the privacy plugins on my Firefox stops me there.
gowld 6y ago
For whatever reason, adblockers haven't figured out how to remove history spam.
mjevans 6y ago
I think a better option would be an immutable history, but pages that are loaded for less than 10 seconds grayed out in the list and pages that are inserted given a light pink background.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  I'm not super concerned about history injection other than when blindly clicking the back button. I've used history injection in a legitimate use case requested by users (think master/detail when linking directly to a detail view; back goes back to the master list). I'm not sure how to unobtrusively notify of malicious history injection (like news sites) without downgrading legitimate uses. Hopefully the answer isn't another permissions request :)
tbodt 6y ago
Unfortunately GWT is deprecated so the chance of this getting fixed is slim. Instead bet on this status page getting deprecated and maybe rewritten by 2021.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  GWT isn't officially deprecated, although it's not getting much attention.
emilfihlman 6y ago
Both of those pollute your history, which sucks, majorly. We really need a "update uri without side-effects, at least in #scope.

julianlam 6y ago

Of course it's worth it! You gained valuable insight on which sites utilise a particular dark pattern, and that they probably use others. I don't bother clicking on TechCrunch articles for this reason.

DarthGhandi 6y ago
It's a status page, doesn't seem to be a dark pattern intended to keep you engaged and garner clicks, more likely just badly written. If anything they'd probably want you not visiting it more.
schrodinger 6y ago
Incompetence, not malice. Who would dark pattern their status page to keep you on it longer—def an accident.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Why are there two comments back to back missing the fact they're obviously referring to this part of the comment: > News sites injecting their homepage in history on an article sometimes make me wonder if it's worth it. They even bring up a news site as an example.
- dogecoinbase 6y ago
  I'm not going to assert actual malice, but I think that at Google's scale we can go further than incompetence to bare negligence.
- tdy721 6y ago
  How about canary?
pmontra 6y ago
I don't bother clicking TechCrunch because it redirects to https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_cc-session_<a https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=3_... uuid> and one of the privacy plugins on my Firefox stops me there.

gowld 6y ago

For whatever reason, adblockers haven't figured out how to remove history spam.

mjevans 6y ago

I think a better option would be an immutable history, but pages that are loaded for less than 10 seconds grayed out in the list and pages that are inserted given a light pink background.

ultrarunner 6y ago
I'm not super concerned about history injection other than when blindly clicking the back button. I've used history injection in a legitimate use case requested by users (think master/detail when linking directly to a detail view; back goes back to the master list). I'm not sure how to unobtrusively notify of malicious history injection (like news sites) without downgrading legitimate uses. Hopefully the answer isn't another permissions request :)

tbodt 6y ago

Unfortunately GWT is deprecated so the chance of this getting fixed is slim. Instead bet on this status page getting deprecated and maybe rewritten by 2021.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
GWT isn't officially deprecated, although it's not getting much attention.

emilfihlman 6y ago

Both of those pollute your history, which sucks, majorly. We really need a "update uri without side-effects, at least in #scope.