4 ms·

Wow. I'd love to see these treacherous "onmousedown" handlers that substitute the link on Google site gone! Especially on the RIGHT click. Actually, I could ne

Wow. I'd love to see these treacherous "onmousedown" handlers that substitute the link on Google site gone! Especially on the RIGHT click. Actually, I could never understand, why Google substitutes the link with the redirect on the RIGHT click. It is necessary when you LEFT click, the page looses control and it doesn't matter much for users anyway. But WHY do it on the right click? When the user RIGHT clicks the link, the user needs the ORIGINAL link! And the user IS NOT leaving the page. Google is free to record a right click. And yet, instead of just recording the right click Google mangles the link instead. WHY? Just evil/stupid? or I'm not understanding some hidden wisdom here?

RobertKerans 12y ago
Seconding this, it drives me up the wall. Little frustrations, that mount and mount when you just want to do basic things..
- hartator 12y ago
  There was a time, a long time ago, where we don't have google link redirects in search results... drive me crazy too, specially some time it's laggy.
sliverstorm 12y ago
I've always figured that one is just an oversight. Implementing the behavior you want is an extra feature requiring extra code. The current behavior is the ordinary one, that you see in nearly every web page out there.
- dchichkov 12y ago
  So, they don't care, that right-clicks vs left-clicks is actually different data? And that tracking a bit more intelligently can reduce user frustration? So basically it is not stupid/evil, it is just lazy/evil? (And BTW, this is a compliment to Google, as I'm asking the question. Not assuming that by default, as any other big co they've just filled with bozos.)
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    It could be for a lot of reasons. Busy with other things, lazy- or even about things like performance. Once upon a time I remember when their home page was heavily stripped and used unterminated HTML (e.g. no </body> tag) as part of an effort to minimize bandwidth and improve latency. I don't know why, but especially when something is following the default behavior I do not assume malice.
    - dchichkov 12y ago
      Unlikely performance. Google search results page is relatively heavy, with Google+/etc. And this one, is a simple change of a few lines of code. Yes, sure, it is a default behavior and I also don't assume malice (evil = lazy / stupid / don't care about users, not malice). I'm just surprised about the oversight, that they apparently don't care about having slightly better click types data and also making the user experience slightly better. (And BTW, this is again compliment to Google, as I'm surprised. Not assuming that by default, as any other big co they've just filled with bozos.)
SquareWheel 12y ago
What about Right Click > Open in new tab?
- girvo 12y ago
  Works, but it's annoying for the use-case of copying the URL. If they didn't do this, you could right-click "Copy Location". Now you have to open it in a new tab, select the address and copy it there, wasting bandwidth and time.

RobertKerans 12y ago

Seconding this, it drives me up the wall. Little frustrations, that mount and mount when you just want to do basic things..

hartator 12y ago
There was a time, a long time ago, where we don't have google link redirects in search results... drive me crazy too, specially some time it's laggy.

sliverstorm 12y ago

I've always figured that one is just an oversight. Implementing the behavior you want is an extra feature requiring extra code. The current behavior is the ordinary one, that you see in nearly every web page out there.

dchichkov 12y ago
So, they don't care, that right-clicks vs left-clicks is actually different data? And that tracking a bit more intelligently can reduce user frustration? So basically it is not stupid/evil, it is just lazy/evil? (And BTW, this is a compliment to Google, as I'm asking the question. Not assuming that by default, as any other big co they've just filled with bozos.)
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It could be for a lot of reasons. Busy with other things, lazy- or even about things like performance. Once upon a time I remember when their home page was heavily stripped and used unterminated HTML (e.g. no </body> tag) as part of an effort to minimize bandwidth and improve latency. I don't know why, but especially when something is following the default behavior I do not assume malice.
  - dchichkov 12y ago
    Unlikely performance. Google search results page is relatively heavy, with Google+/etc. And this one, is a simple change of a few lines of code. Yes, sure, it is a default behavior and I also don't assume malice (evil = lazy / stupid / don't care about users, not malice). I'm just surprised about the oversight, that they apparently don't care about having slightly better click types data and also making the user experience slightly better. (And BTW, this is again compliment to Google, as I'm surprised. Not assuming that by default, as any other big co they've just filled with bozos.)

SquareWheel 12y ago

What about Right Click > Open in new tab?

girvo 12y ago
Works, but it's annoying for the use-case of copying the URL. If they didn't do this, you could right-click "Copy Location". Now you have to open it in a new tab, select the address and copy it there, wasting bandwidth and time.