Slashdot Mirror
Google Slammed Over Chrome Change That Strips 'www' From Domain URLs (itwire.com)
An anonymous reader quotes ITWire:
Google's move to strip out the www in domains typed into the address bar, beginning with version 69 of its Chrome browser, has drawn an enormous amount of criticism from developers who see the move as a bid to cement the company's dominance of the Web. The criticism comes a few days after Chrome's engineering manager Adrienne Porter Felt told the American website Wired that URLs need to be got rid of altogether. The change in Chrome version 69 means that if one types in a domain such as www.itwire.com into the browser search bar, the www portion is stripped out in the address bar when the page is displayed.
When asked about this change in a long discussion thread on a mailing list, a Google staffer wrote: "www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain, and hiding trivial subdomains can be disabled in flags (will also disable hiding the URL scheme)..." A Google staffer attempted to justify the change, writing: "The subdomains reappear when editing the URL so people type the correct one. They disappear in the steady-state display case because this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases..." But this drew an angry response from a poster who questioned the statement "this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases" and asked: "According to who? This is simply an opinion stated as a fact...."
This is not the first time Google has been criticised for its moves to change the fundamental structure of URLs. Its Accelerated Mobile Pages, introduced in October 2015, have been criticised for obscuring the original URL of a page and reducing the chances of a reader going back to the original website. Probably for this reason, Apple last year decided that version 11 of iOS would update its Safari browser so that AMP links would be stripped out of an URL when the story was shared... "This is Google making subdomain usage decisions for other entities outside of Google," said yet another poster. "My domains and how subdomains are assigned and delegated are not Google's business to decide."
The controversy moved Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein to write a new blog post. Its title? "Here's How to Disable Google Chrome's Confusing New URL Hiding Scheme."
UPDATE (9/15/18): Google has announced that after public outcry, they'll return the 'www' to Chrome's URL's -- but only until the next release.
When asked about this change in a long discussion thread on a mailing list, a Google staffer wrote: "www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain, and hiding trivial subdomains can be disabled in flags (will also disable hiding the URL scheme)..." A Google staffer attempted to justify the change, writing: "The subdomains reappear when editing the URL so people type the correct one. They disappear in the steady-state display case because this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases..." But this drew an angry response from a poster who questioned the statement "this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases" and asked: "According to who? This is simply an opinion stated as a fact...."
This is not the first time Google has been criticised for its moves to change the fundamental structure of URLs. Its Accelerated Mobile Pages, introduced in October 2015, have been criticised for obscuring the original URL of a page and reducing the chances of a reader going back to the original website. Probably for this reason, Apple last year decided that version 11 of iOS would update its Safari browser so that AMP links would be stripped out of an URL when the story was shared... "This is Google making subdomain usage decisions for other entities outside of Google," said yet another poster. "My domains and how subdomains are assigned and delegated are not Google's business to decide."
The controversy moved Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein to write a new blog post. Its title? "Here's How to Disable Google Chrome's Confusing New URL Hiding Scheme."
UPDATE (9/15/18): Google has announced that after public outcry, they'll return the 'www' to Chrome's URL's -- but only until the next release.
Add this to the arbitrary scare tactics for http pages... and the AMP debacle...
if you haven't figured it out yet, Google is evil. Period.
This honestly sounds like change for the sake of change. I think too many corporations do this and to many managers do this to justify their salaries. Leave it alone! How about working to make Chrome more secure? If you're going to do something, do something productive and meaningful.
But it doesn't mean you can just ignore it. In the URL syntax that part of the URL identifies the host and possibly a user id and port. You can't automatically *know* that "www.somedomain.net" refers to a different host than "somedomain.net", and even if it did the host would not necessarily be configured to return the same information to an HTTP GET.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You don't get to decide how other people structure their resources.
And if we're at that point, maybe something drastically needs to change. Civil and criminal liability for damages resulting from altered resource locators that fraudulently misrepresent the resource being served?
This is especially going to be problems as the suppression of "www" is also done when one clicks on the address bar.
If you have different content between www and *., and a user clicks on the address bar, copies what is displayed and sends it to someone else, the recipient will see different content than the sender, despite otherwise appearing to be the same URL.
Still, easily fixable by adding the "www" when someone clicks on the address bar and solely suppressing when the address bar does not have focus.
Thirty four characters live here.
Steve Jobs famously referred to Google as "That Montessouri School in Mountain View." He was right. In recent times their culture has gotten so autistic that when they're replaced with AI it will cause a noticeable improvement in the humanity of Google as a whole. They, along with the social media platforms are basically bright kids playing with dynamite.
Why is it up to Google to decide which details we should concern ourselves with?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Just force us to use Google search for everything.
Also, I hope someone brings back AOL keywords. I love these walled gardens.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Did someone at Google suddenly forget, it is entirely possible for 'mydomain.com' to yield a different page than 'www.mydomain.com'?
It's not common, but it's doable and some people might do this. This change makes no sense to me.
www.domain.com and domain.com actually have different entries on the DNS records and can resolve to different servers. Most companies have set it up so the former redirects to the latter (or vice versa), but for the ones that haven't, obfuscating www.domain.com can lead to people typing in just domain.com when you have a www.domain.com server specifically set up to handle http requests (the regular domain.com handling other tasks like ftp, ssh, etc). Your domain.com server then has to handle the http request, and send a redirect message to the browser to go to www.domain.com instead. Basically it unnecessarily puts additional load onto your main server when you've set up a separate web server specifically to avoid that unnecessary load, and causes the client browser to take a fraction of a second longer to get to the real site.
If this change had been the other way around (automatically pre-pending www to domain.com) I wouldn't see a problem with it (aside from inconveniencing a few domain owners who've haven't correctly set up their www.domain.com NS entry into setting it up correctly). But stripping out the www creates unnecessary server load, wastes a tiny bit of time for the person browsing, confuses domain owners trying to troubleshoot what's actually going on, and has no tangible benefit other than "decluttering" the URL bar by 3 characters. From a troubleshooting standpoint, I'd rate this change almost as bad as ISPs who redirect domain typos to an advertising page, instead of an error page.
It seems to strip the 'http://' and 'https://' COME ON GOOGLE, I've been teaching users for YEARS to watch their URL box and be wary of they don't see HTTPS. Goddamn Google you are stupid.
1) WTF were you thinking...
Perhaps you also think that Google shouldn't display the top level domain as well? By this logic, the top level domain is also a "trivial" part of the URL. There is clearly no discernible difference between whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.com, right? There should be no problem, also, if Chrome shows just, "whitehouse" in the URL, because users will figure that out.
2) do you really think your *users* will be able to figure that out?
I find your second point to be doubly humorous (in a troublesome sort of way) after responding to your first point.
Browsers should not be screwing with what is displayed in the address bar. It is the browser's responsibility to faithfully display the actual contents of the address bar, not to impose its own dogma on it. I don't know if Google is trolling or not; but the whole concept of removing ANY information from the address bar is monumentally stupid, and reeks of Microsoft in the 90's.
The www. nonsense is a leftover from an ancient time and should be eliminated
Until it is eliminated, it should be displayed
Browsers should display full and accurate URLs
The same thing goes for file browsers. Hiding extensions is wrong, and increases confusion
Looks like Google has already closed the discussion on this OUT, within 48 hours. They merged several other threads of people complaining about this into this thread, there are other various issues people reported; but it seems like Google just doesn't care. This also strips out "www" anywhere in the URL, so "https://sub.www.example.com" is changed to just showing "sub.example.com".
I think half-measures in this regard aren't a good way of getting there if that's a good thing, it's just a confusing middle ground.
If you *want* to 'pretty up' the url, then go all out and make it visually obvious it's not a url until clicked for editing/copy/paste. Don't present something that looks like a url, but has been modified to be potentially invalid. This is not something that has to be 'gradually' moved to, it's something you do in one go or just don't do.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.