Slashdot Mirror
Google Prefetching for Mozilla Browsers
kv9 writes "A post on GoogleBlog reveals that Google has enabled results prefetching for Mozilla based browsers, which means that the top results of queries are being loaded in the background and pages will load faster. More info on the Mozilla Prefetching FAQ and the Google Webmaster FAQ"
Replace the %23 with a # and the url will work.
Slashdot kills the # character in the URL: prefetching faq
get nemulator
Here is The working Google link
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
BUGzilla blocks Slashdot referrers, not MOzilla.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
...that's just Bugzilla, anything else on the mozilla site accepts referrals from slashdot.org.
I am NaN
It's not the speed of google - it's the speed of jumping off google and on to the website "most likely" to be what you're searching for.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
This isn't for pages WITHIN a site, where determining what is 'next' may be problematic. This is for search results.
Here there is a logical choice to prefetch, namely, the top search result. This just autoloads the page to which "I'm feeling lucky" points.
I still don't necessarily like it, it wastes bandwidth. Yes, I know I can turn prefetching off in about:config, but most people won't.
1. Type "about:config" the address bar.
2. Scroll down to the setting "network.prefetch-next" and set the value to "False".
Sucks for those of us on shared providers, I guess, who don't want this so our bandwidth costs don't increase.
I wish they had an option in the Google preferences to disable this, as I don't need a slower connection. Fortunately, you can disable it:
It would be nice if there was an option in Firefox prefs to do this so I don't have to remember it every time I reload.
Only when google is confident that the top result is the one you want - the one link that the vast majority of people actually click - do they include the prefetch link for that one resource. Go and try it for yourself, and look for prefetch in the source. For the vast majority of searches, it isn't there. Only when looking for the authoritive resource (such as stanford.edu for "stanford") is the prefetch link actually there.
Sure, their metrics might be off at times, but the way this has been implemented is definitely a good way, and will be very helpful for users of all browsers implementing prefetching (which currently is gecko-based only afaik, but could easily enough include opera and safari and such as well in the near future).
Type about:config ... then scroll down to network.prefetch-next ... double click it to "false" ... all done.
Um, if you read the Mozilla Prefetch FAQ, you'll learn that this only happens when you are not using bandwidth for something else initiated by the current Mozilla application. Worry :-)
So turn it off in about:config, nothing lost.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Even if it WERE mozilla, rather than just bugzilla as mentioned above..
:D)...click tab settings..and make it always block referer. Or you can just make TBE do it for every site, though i dont.
Install tabbrowser extensions (TBE), and right click your quicklaunch type link at the top of firefox(which we all know we all have right?
TBE and adblock make browsing in firefox about a thousand times better. Why firefox doesnt have good tab behavior in the first place is beyond me.
With TBE closing a tab doesnt just kick me to the last tab, goes to last selected. Also middle clicking links from within pages keeps proper sorting in TBE and colour codes it to show you whats going on.
You can drag tabs around and a million other little features that are missing from the default tab behavior. Good stuff.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
You do have this chance to vote, if you find a useful page clicking the "More like this" link, not only gives you pages tuned closer to that page, but it also tells Google that's what you wanted to see when you searched in the first place.
For example, if you search triblock copolymer rheology there will be no prefetch. If you search Mozilla there will be prefetch.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
There's a Firefox plug called LiveHTTPHeaders which will show the requests/responses the browser is getting. Using this I can see that the browser only loads the HTML page for the prefetched page, not any associated images/javascript files etc. Because of this you'll only notice a difference if your browser caches the HTML file, and even then the difference in loading time is likely to be minimal.
Other browsers, like Opera or Safari, could easily implement the same next document pre-fetching. Next isn't something the Mozilla team made up, it's part of the w3c specs. Now, if Google started using the --moz CSS extensions to do things like round corners, THAT would be browser specific.
For example if you search for: ~hot
You'll get the tracking links. I think it's random on many searches, but on ~ searches, they always have it.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Now every 56ker is going to move away from google.
Why?
Lie the article says, Moz/FFX only uses bandwidth you're not already using, so it won't make any other operation slower, and if you're on a slow connection then prefetching a page saves you even more time than if you're on a fast one. What's the use case that would have you moving to the door?
Kevin Fox
The above post could only be considered insightful if you didn't read the article. If you look at how Google implemented this feature you'll see that, with a possible rare exception of the first point on certain searches, none of these arguments apply.
This has been in Mozilla for almost four years and it doesn't violate any standards. look at the "Is link prefetching standards compliant" item in http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefet ching_FAQ.html.
Isn't it simpler to set your google preferences to do that?
http://www.google.ca/preferences?hl=en
I'd expect that Google has better figures on where people go to from Google's search pages than anyone else.
No. It doesn't have any way to know which result a user clicked. It doesn't link results to its own website which redirects to the actual website, like Yahoo does (or used to, haven't used yahoo in a while). Other than that, Google can't do a better job than anyone else.
Google does use a redirect script, but only for a small percentage of sessions. And you probably wouldn't notice; they use Javascript to display the original URL in the status bar. (IIRC)
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Other people here have already discussed the "you'll get in trouble from work/authorities for prefetching things on to your computer you don't even know you're loading" deal, so I won't touch that. They've also discussed the "You'll use more bandwidth" thing.
Here's my complaint, from an entirely different direction: two years from now, is every default installation of Mozilla and/or Firefox going to require me to change a laundry list of preferences in order to avoid features I don't want?
I mean, go ahead and put these features in, but don't activate them automatically: do what Opera does (asks if the user wants to activate a feature) or just leave them off by default, and add a menu option to turn it on.
Having these things turned on by default is going to be an inconvenience going forward, and smacks a bit of elitist "we know what's better for your web browsing experience than you do" attitude, you know what I mean?
At this point, I'd be thrilled with setting optional parameters like this to 'off' by default, and updating the default installation home page (visible on first execution of the app) to a page listing "Great optional features", along with buttons to turn them on and a quick note on how to turn them back off if desired.
> I also expect that this will be abused by
> unscrupulous websites who want to run up their ad
> revenue by having people preload a page full of
> ads.
They can already do this using hidden IFRAMEs, and it works on all browsers. Nothing new here, move along.
Google occasionally makes search results go through a redirect, so it has statistics about which results users clicked on for maybe 1% of searches.
The shareholder is always right.