Problem with Win 7 and Google Back arrow

On 28/07/2014 00:36, VanguardLH wrote:
Rodney Pont wrote:

I think he means the previous page arrow on the browser. If you have
done a search in Google and looked at one of the hits then use the
previous page arrow you sometimes get a blank Google hits page. Just
refresh it and your previous hits come back.

Then it's not a problem at Google's site at all. If you click on a link
for a result and go off to some other site, they can use meta-refresh,
web server redirects, javascript, or other tricks to disable the Back
button. They don't want to let you go once you got there. Just because
they're trying to keep you at their site doesn't mean they know how to
properly code for disabling the Back button.

Once you click on a results link in a Google search, you're not at
Google anymore. You're subject to the code in the web pages delivered
by the NEW site you went to.


Ah.

I always set Google to open search results I click on in a new Tab.

It's much better that way.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

On 28/07/2014 10:30, Mike Barnes wrote:
. . .winston wrote:
vzlion wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:38:49 +0100, Brian Gregory
wrote:

On 26/07/2014 23:13, vzlion wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to IE10. There are many
references to this problem in almost all browsers, Firefox, Chrome,
etc, and IE. I have looked time after time over the last six months
and have yet to find a solution to the problem in IE. Thanks for your
interest.


So exactly what has this to do with Google?

That arrow is supposed to take you back to the previously viewed web
page.
It's the Google back arrow that doesn't work, it takes you back to a
blank page. It only does it in Google.


It's not a Google back arrow.
It is a browser's back arrow

As you've explained (so far)....for some reason it happens to you after
using the Google search feature to load a Google search result link and
then return via the browser back arrow to the Google search results.

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.


I always go to Google search settings and set Google to always open
search results in a new tab.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

Rodney Pont wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Assuming you really are back at Google's site and not inside some
frame for the other site. While the presumption is that the
document loaded when you think you're at Google's site is only for
Google, I'm sure web authors have figured out some nasties when you
leave their site.

Well the URL is Googles. I'm describing what I see and it sounds like
what the OP is also saying. It happens both with IE and Firefox. All
that is on the screen is the box that shows what you searched for
(empty) and the line separating it from the results. All the other
screen furniture isn't there, even the Google graphic is missing.
I've not looked at the page source when this happens since I'm not
going to be able to fix it I haven't seen the point. It looks as
though it's loosing the session info. It doesn't happen very often
and refresh sorts it out.

Google used to use redirection links. That is, the link pointed at
Google with parameters that specified the target site. This let Google
track who was clicking on which link and how often. They redirected to
their server to record the link got used, when, by whom, and to where it
pointed, and then the user got redirected to the target site.

Google doesn't use redirection links anymore. They use Javascript and
the onclick or onmousedown events. When you click on a link, and with
each link have a unique event (function) defined for it, they can track
on which link you clicked.

So the links in Google's results ARE to the target site. They aren't
Googles but a navpath at the target site (found when Google webcrawled
that site).

When the problem happens (when Back to the Google page results in a
white page), is it consistent? That is, when you generate a list of
results and click on one of them that exhibits the problem, can you
re-click on that same link in Google's results to go to the same target
site and Back will fail to work again? Or is it erratic when you get
the blank Google page when using Back?

Do you have add-ons installed in your web browser? If so, have you
tried disabling them to retest if the problem still occurs? Does your
anti-virus software interrogate your web traffic which incurs delay?

Brian Gregory wrote:

On 28/07/2014 10:30, Mike Barnes wrote:

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.

I always go to Google search settings and set Google to always open
search results in a new tab.

That requires you keep their cookie. Most users nowadays configure
their web browser to purge cookies on exit, or they use cleanup tools,
like Ccleaner.

Mike Barnes wrote:

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.

Wouldn't clicking on the middle mouse button be easier than have to use
both hands (for Ctrl+click)?

On 28/07/2014 13:03, VanguardLH wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

On 28/07/2014 10:30, Mike Barnes wrote:

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.

I always go to Google search settings and set Google to always open
search results in a new tab.

That requires you keep their cookie. Most users nowadays configure
their web browser to purge cookies on exit, or they use cleanup tools,
like Ccleaner.


I configure my browser to reject third party cookies except those on my
whitelist. plus.google.com and apis.google.com are in my whitelist (and
not much else).

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

VanguardLH wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.

Wouldn't clicking on the middle mouse button be easier than have to use
both hands (for Ctrl+click)?

I never knew that - thanks!

My left hand is normally lurking on the keyboard, and I am left handed,
so it's no trouble to use it, but I'll try to remember to use the middle
button instead and see how it goes.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

|
| Google doesn't use redirection links anymore. They use Javascript

I don't know what that has to do with going back to
a blank page, but I still see redirection links. It may
be because I don't enable javascript. Either way, it's a
good reason not to use Google. They're determined to
track everything you do.

| Try double-click reverse. Click backwards very fast twice. Google
| sometimes has an intermediate page between the previous page and a
| results page.

That's true. I use the option accessibility.blockautorefresh
in FF/PM to prevent a number of problematic reload
behaviors. Google is unique in my experience. I have to
click a button to enable a redirection in order to actually
get the results. The first page I get to is blank. I don't
remember ever seeing another site do that. Many try to
reload for some reason, but they're only trying to reload the
full page that I'm already looking at. Google goes to a blank
page and then wants to redirect from there. However, if I
click the Back button in Pale Moon I do get the Google page
I came from and not the intermediate, blank page.

There were two reasons I initially set accessibility.blockautorefresh
to True. One was to stop the idiotic behavior of news sites
reloading periodically without offering any choice. The other
was to block endless reload loops that some sites use.

On 28/07/2014 14:57, Mayayana wrote:
|
| Google doesn't use redirection links anymore. They use Javascript

I don't know what that has to do with going back to
a blank page, but I still see redirection links. It may
be because I don't enable javascript. Either way, it's a
good reason not to use Google. They're determined to
track everything you do.



How are they supposed to put the popular links at the top if they're not
allowed to see when people click on them?

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

| How are they supposed to put the popular links at the top if they're not
| allowed to see when people click on them?

Why do you want popular? If you allow them to track
you they'll also customize the results you get. Do you
really want that? I want the results that are a good
guess to be most relevant.

Google has slowly ruined search and is gradually damaging
the Internet, as far as I'm concerned. When they started
out they returned likely matches to keywords and paid
for it with related ads on the side. But they started putting
a high value on incoming links and frequent updates. A good
example: Years ago I had an eye problem with a very unusual
name. It was a good topic for search. When I researched it I
found pages that people had put up just to be helpful. They
had had the disorder and wanted to provide information to
other people. But those sites were not commercial. They didn't
have a lot of incoming links. They didn't update much, if ever.
Google's formula therefore classified them as low-relevance.

A few years later I had the eye problem again. When I did a
new search I got links for things like an eye clinic in Florida.
(I'm in Boston.) The independent, non-commercial sites were
not in the returns at all. If I allow Google to track me I'll get
eye clinics in Boston next time. Maybe I'll get a clinic related
to the optometrist I've done business with. But those sites
won't do me any good. I want the links related to what I'm
searching for and Google has distorted the Web, returning
businesses that can sell me something related to what I'm
searching for. And not even just businesses. Popular businesses
that hire clever search-optimization people and have link-
sharing agreements with other businesses.

So, no, I would prefer not to have the "popular" links
at the top. What I'd like is for Google to cut out the
monkey business and just return pages that have the
words I'm looking for. Their job is to guess which of those
pages are likely to be relevant, not which page I want to go
to to buy something.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:18:11 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:

FWIW I don't regret having got myself into the habit of always using
ctrl+click on search results pages, so that the new page opens on a new
tab, and the other search results are still available.

Wouldn't clicking on the middle mouse button be easier than have to use
both hands (for Ctrl+click)?

I never knew that - thanks!

+1

snip

Hi, Mayayana.

Very good explanation!

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX

Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3528.0331) in Win8.1 Pro with Media
Center


"Mayayana" wrote in message ...

| How are they supposed to put the popular links at the top if they're not
| allowed to see when people click on them?

Why do you want popular? If you allow them to track
you they'll also customize the results you get. Do you
really want that? I want the results that are a good
guess to be most relevant.

Google has slowly ruined search and is gradually damaging
the Internet, as far as I'm concerned. When they started
out they returned likely matches to keywords and paid
for it with related ads on the side. But they started putting
a high value on incoming links and frequent updates. A good
example: Years ago I had an eye problem with a very unusual
name. It was a good topic for search. When I researched it I
found pages that people had put up just to be helpful. They
had had the disorder and wanted to provide information to
other people. But those sites were not commercial. They didn't
have a lot of incoming links. They didn't update much, if ever.
Google's formula therefore classified them as low-relevance.

A few years later I had the eye problem again. When I did a
new search I got links for things like an eye clinic in Florida.
(I'm in Boston.) The independent, non-commercial sites were
not in the returns at all. If I allow Google to track me I'll get
eye clinics in Boston next time. Maybe I'll get a clinic related
to the optometrist I've done business with. But those sites
won't do me any good. I want the links related to what I'm
searching for and Google has distorted the Web, returning
businesses that can sell me something related to what I'm
searching for. And not even just businesses. Popular businesses
that hire clever search-optimization people and have link-
sharing agreements with other businesses.

So, no, I would prefer not to have the "popular" links
at the top. What I'd like is for Google to cut out the
monkey business and just return pages that have the
words I'm looking for. Their job is to guess which of those
pages are likely to be relevant, not which page I want to go
to to buy something.

On 28/07/2014 16:42, Mayayana wrote:
| How are they supposed to put the popular links at the top if they're not
| allowed to see when people click on them?

Why do you want popular? If you allow them to track
you they'll also customize the results you get. Do you
really want that? I want the results that are a good
guess to be most relevant.

Google has slowly ruined search and is gradually damaging
the Internet, as far as I'm concerned. When they started
out they returned likely matches to keywords and paid
for it with related ads on the side. But they started putting
a high value on incoming links and frequent updates. A good
example: Years ago I had an eye problem with a very unusual
name. It was a good topic for search. When I researched it I
found pages that people had put up just to be helpful. They
had had the disorder and wanted to provide information to
other people. But those sites were not commercial. They didn't
have a lot of incoming links. They didn't update much, if ever.
Google's formula therefore classified them as low-relevance.

A few years later I had the eye problem again. When I did a
new search I got links for things like an eye clinic in Florida.
(I'm in Boston.) The independent, non-commercial sites were
not in the returns at all. If I allow Google to track me I'll get
eye clinics in Boston next time. Maybe I'll get a clinic related
to the optometrist I've done business with. But those sites
won't do me any good. I want the links related to what I'm
searching for and Google has distorted the Web, returning
businesses that can sell me something related to what I'm
searching for. And not even just businesses. Popular businesses
that hire clever search-optimization people and have link-
sharing agreements with other businesses.

So, no, I would prefer not to have the "popular" links
at the top. What I'd like is for Google to cut out the
monkey business and just return pages that have the
words I'm looking for. Their job is to guess which of those
pages are likely to be relevant, not which page I want to go
to to buy something.

I don't see how you can expect a dumb computer to know which pages are
most relevant unless it knows which links people actually tend to click on.

If you really don't want Google to know it's you again when you search
again you just have to delete all the Google related cookies and not log in.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

| I don't see how you can expect a dumb computer to know which pages are
| most relevant unless it knows which links people actually tend to click
on.
|

If we both search for "apple" and you click on link #4,
how does that help me? Maybe you're searching for
Apple computers and I'm searching for Apple records.
Google tries to guess which sites you found useful. As
I understand it, they do that in part by tracking which
site you went to last. But that actually tells them very
little. And the priorities of their rating formula pretty
much invalidate that data anyway. If most people find
link X useful but link Y is upated more often and/or
has more incoming links and/or is a more well-established
site, then link Y will probably get a higher rating and
appear earlier in the search results.

The main purpose of Google's tracking is not to improve
search. It's to know who you are and what you're doing,
so that they can sell more ads for more money, to be
shown to you. Remember when Google first started? Their
search was uncannily good. That "dumb computer" was
very good at finding things, without any spying at all. They
just sold ads related to search terms. No targetting. Since
then Google has transformed from a search company to a
publicly traded advertising company. The relevance of what
their search returns only matters for them insofar as it might
be necessary in order to keep you coming back. Their only
real business is to spy on you in order to sell ad space on
the pages you visit, and to sell it at a premium. Or to put it
another way, Google's search is not really working for you.
Google is searching for optimum viewers of ads and you're
one of the returns.

In many cases there are Google/Doubleclick ads on the
sites you're going to, anyway. Even if there are not, there
is probably Google Analytics code. So Google knows
exactly what most people are doing. The URL redirects
is just one sleazy aspect of an overall sleazy strategy,
very little of which has anything to do with helping you
find what you need.

| If you really don't want Google to know it's you again when you search
| again you just have to delete all the Google related cookies and not log
in.

Not log in? Your naivety is almost endearing. You assume
that everyone online logs in to Google and has a GMail
or Google+ account? And that they all have Google cookies?
Are you also one of those people who types all URLs into
the Google search box instead of your browser's address
bar, because you don't really see any difference between
Google and the Internet? Perhaps you're one of those people
who could never quit Facebook because you don't know any
other way to contact your friends? ...Or maybe you're actually
a Googlite yourself?

I don't normally allow cookies or script. I block Google
Analytics and Doubleclick domains. I wouldn't "log in" to any
Google service unless I'm well paid for it. And these days I
normally avoid using their search engine. Their redirects
are all the more insidious for me because I block most other
tracking.
From what you've said I'd guess they probably
have a record of just about everything you've clicked, and
the time intervals in between, so tracking the links you click
on their search page hardly matters. They'll see you when you
arrive at the target page. And they also apparently rifle through
your email. And if you have an Android cellphone they probably
know where you are physically most of the time, and will be
well informed about your app use, phone calls, etc. *There is
absolutely no reason to think that any spying Google can do,
no matter how base or even illegal, is not being done.* That's
their stated mission.