4 ms·

Sorry Off-topic for the royalty request but relevant to the link. Is it just me that runs with Noscript and finds scribd a real nuisance? The linked page want

Sorry Off-topic for the royalty request but relevant to the link. Is it just me that runs with Noscript and finds scribd a real nuisance? The linked page wants to run scripts from: www.scribd.com fonts1.scribdassets.com s5.scribdassets.com s6.scribdassets.com rc.rlcdn.com resources.infolinks.com tap-cdn.rubiconproject.com www.bkrtx.com And you have to register to do the direct download. I would have thought that they could have rationalised their own use of domains to a single domain (plus subdomains) that could be authorised if I wished. The other four domains I've never heard of which makes me just want to get out of the site. Should I just trust them because scribd says that they trust them?

gnu8 14y ago
Scribd is truly a nuisance. No one needs their product and the price is too high (zero dollars plus all of the information they can mine from Facebook).
quesera 14y ago
It's common to use a different (not sub) domain for static assets, especially when you use gigantic cookies in your web app. If the static assets aren't under access control, you usually don't need session information, etc to serve them properly. This saves time and bandwidth. It's also common to spread assets across multiple hostsnames (typically subdomains that resolve to the same server) to parallelize loading by browsers. So I try to give sites some leeway, but I agree about scribd. If I can't make the site work by allowing the primary domain and a CDN domain, I generally bail. I never ever allow unknown domains like those above, especially on a site where I'm coming to view user-submitted content. I trust the JavaScript sandbox well enough, but if I get to the point of having to wonder about the provenance of code delivered by a site I'm visiting, I'm usually too disgusted to bother continuing.
josephlord 14y ago
I know I've been downvoted (a first for me on HN - I guess for being offtopic but maybe because many people feel that I'm wrong to be objecting to this) but I also got it wrong, more sites are needed once you do allow scribd.com. All the non-scribd sites above seem to be tracking or analytics. Additionally required after www.scribd.com has been permitted (I haven't allowed any of the advertising/tracking/SEO sites to run scripts to see if they have further dependencies): twitter.com p.chango.com quantserve.com beacon.newrelic.com - (I don't object to this one.) www.googletagservices.com If people think I am wrong to be uncomfortable with this sort of behaviour by a site please reply and try to change my mind. I just really don't like the idea that websites feel free to allow half the advertising companies on the internet to know what individual* people are browsing and looking at. Maybe I'm just too Web 1.0 and old fashioned to expect sites not to send me round the internet when I land on the page. *Scribd may not be tracking who people are but the advertisers might be.

gnu8 14y ago

Scribd is truly a nuisance. No one needs their product and the price is too high (zero dollars plus all of the information they can mine from Facebook).

quesera 14y ago

It's common to use a different (not sub) domain for static assets, especially when you use gigantic cookies in your web app. If the static assets aren't under access control, you usually don't need session information, etc to serve them properly. This saves time and bandwidth. It's also common to spread assets across multiple hostsnames (typically subdomains that resolve to the same server) to parallelize loading by browsers. So I try to give sites some leeway, but I agree about scribd. If I can't make the site work by allowing the primary domain and a CDN domain, I generally bail. I never ever allow unknown domains like those above, especially on a site where I'm coming to view user-submitted content. I trust the JavaScript sandbox well enough, but if I get to the point of having to wonder about the provenance of code delivered by a site I'm visiting, I'm usually too disgusted to bother continuing.

josephlord 14y ago

I know I've been downvoted (a first for me on HN - I guess for being offtopic but maybe because many people feel that I'm wrong to be objecting to this) but I also got it wrong, more sites are needed once you do allow scribd.com. All the non-scribd sites above seem to be tracking or analytics. Additionally required after www.scribd.com has been permitted (I haven't allowed any of the advertising/tracking/SEO sites to run scripts to see if they have further dependencies): twitter.com p.chango.com quantserve.com beacon.newrelic.com - (I don't object to this one.) www.googletagservices.com If people think I am wrong to be uncomfortable with this sort of behaviour by a site please reply and try to change my mind. I just really don't like the idea that websites feel free to allow half the advertising companies on the internet to know what individual* people are browsing and looking at. Maybe I'm just too Web 1.0 and old fashioned to expect sites not to send me round the internet when I land on the page. *Scribd may not be tracking who people are but the advertisers might be.