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"
Would prefetching pad the click count for the ads that Google shows along the side? I know, the client (Moz) adds a
X-moz: prefetch
header, but how many server admins log this?
I'm on dial-up at home, and the last thing I want is to download 500K of pages I might not actually view.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I'm using a modem you insensitive clod!
I agree with you. What's worse is sometimes the first several sites are all the SAME worthless pages but with different URLs.
I also like your idea of voting too. Every time you click on a site after searching Google you should have an opportunity to rate its relevance. That'd get rid of a lot of crap quite quickly
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I know people who sometimes connect with a 56k modem, and me myself, sometimes I connect with my mobile phone (GPRS, 10kb/sec max as far as I could see).
It wouldn't be so nice to have bandwith sucked up by all those prefetching (and no, I don't want to change, neither the browser neither the Search Engine).
-- Personal Blog: http://www.delymyth.net/ (italian)
This could turn a google-bomb into an effective DDOS attack... have all kind of blogs set up a google-bomb against a website and link to an image off of the page. Then, when that link hits the top it gets hit automatically, as well as with every other blog (that scales the pagerank for pointing to the popular hit) that puts that picture up. Since they all get prefetched, the images will load up and that page will get nailed by 100x requests. Google will end up shutting this service down before long because of similar abuses.
Not only could this get you in trouble by inadvertently downloading porn at work, but you could download even more incriminating things.
Say for example you were searching for info on that convicted sex offender that moved into your neighborhood or searching for news on terrorist attacks. Prefetching could potentially have your computer downloading things you wouldn't otherwise download and that could get you in real trouble.
s/Firefox/IE/ && s/Google/MSN/ and the reaction here would change completely.
:)
not trolling -- i haven't used IE in years and am a gushing firefox and google fanboy... but having browser-specific features on websites is generally not a good idea, even if it isn't that evil blue browser and is the good one instead. this also seems like an unfair burden to put on small websites..
this has some interesting ramifications though:
now you can really googlebomb a site you don't like. get them to be the top if-not-relevant result and their bandwidth usage increases without an increase in real visitors.. hmmm
I DARE you to put the following link in firefox with this feature on
& btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=child+porn
Tell me how it goes when Bubba and his friends get hold of you, if you do so.
I wrote up a blog post describing how Google and Firefox are helping each other out.
- cooperation-on-link-prefetching/
e -plans/
The link prefetching stuff that Google's using? It was developed by a Mozilla programmer employed by Google. Interesting times!
http://www.jall.org/blog/2005/03/31/googlefirefox
Or for more predictions on the Firefox/Google future in general:
http://www.jall.org/blog/2005/03/19/googles-futur
I don't have always bandwidth-sucking processes running, and I'd prefer to have a "prefetch" checkbox near the search box.
Am I only searching? Prefetch them!
Am I doing too many things at the same time? Leave it all alone, maybe the search isn't my primary task.
-- Personal Blog: http://www.delymyth.net/ (italian)
Lie the article says, Moz/FFX only uses bandwidth you're not already using
no, it only uses bandwith _itself_ is not using.
so it won't make any other operation slower
yes, it can make everything else slower (IM, mail, P2P, updates, etc.)
What's the use case that would have you moving to the door?
slow connection, ISPs with bandwith cap, not wanting unwanted unvisited sites in your cache,
But, you can turn it off in FF, but unfortunately not on a per site basis
It's not in the regular menu structure to keep people from fiddling with it, but it really DOES need to be better exposed.
you could do that with javascript.
just include an onClick XMLHttpRequest script which sends the coordinates of the cursor when the user clicks on a result.
Since the google page looks pretty similar on every browser, the y-coordinate should (could) tell you on which result the user clicked...
pretty hackish - but without any redirect and/or visible to the user.
What does that tilde mean?
As I reply on my blog:
We've a positively irrelevant methodology that leads to the presentation of a proof (as in the Cmabrigde uinervtisy rscheearch), and the meaningless proof is then served to customers as a sales argument. Isn't this a little bit of a fraud?
More precise:
Stopping to read upon seeing the top results doesn't mean you found what you're looking for; more likely, you quickly scan the first results, conclude on the relevance of your query, sometimes click on the first just in case, and search again.
But the Enquiro research merely emphasizes that users click on the first result -- a reasonably obvious result don't you think? -- and do not explore why users do so.
Moreover, the Enquiro research does not mention the conversion rate. Whereas, this is very much the only thing that counts if you're a webmaster.
Now, it is worth noting here that given 10 powerpoint slides, you tend to remember the first few and the last few. It is a perfectly normal pattern: It comes from 10 being greater than 7, plus or minus 2 -- the maximum number of items a typical individual can manipulate.
Likewise, if you feed 10 search results to a visitor, expect him to remember the first few (stored for comparing with the next result), the last few (the last seen), and one or two in the middle (the ones that left him least indifferent).
Likewise, when it comes to choosing which product to buy, expect a few visitors to go for one of the first results. But as the visitor compares more products, he is also more likely to act consistently and buy. Thus, expect many more to go for the last result, or for the last result left him least indifferent.
This doesn't happen at home... but always at work, and it's not cached, because the response is dynamic (it is a search engine after all)
For example, the first link returned from my work machie when searching for 'bob' (ignore the stupid space in the URL added by slashdot):
but from home, it's just
So what happens if you prefetch a page that stresses some vulnerability in the browser? Does it get to run even though you didn't really even browse to the page....
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
Does prefetching only fetch the html, or the images too? If no images are loaded the bandwith is minimal, no kiddy porn violation will exist, and you will not have downloaded anything that could *really* get you fired.
One of the first things taught in Computer Security is that you should not enable features or services unless there is a need for them and justify why there is a need to assume the risks inherent in turning that feature on.
/. world knows about it) has many implications for virus propogation, affiliate program click fraud, distortion of traffic measurements, employee disciplinary legal issues...
As others have pointed out, pre-fetching (especially now that the
For the Foxfire folks to have enabled this feature by default - with no reasonable preference/options interface for the non-geek user and nothing in the browser help (go to Help and search on "Prefetch") to document the functionality - this plays enormously into the hands of those who want to label FireFox (and more generally open source) as being insecure, reckless, and not appropriate in the corporate environment.
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0