Slashdot Mirror


Google Temporarily Brings Back the www In Chrome URLs -- But Should They? (digitaltrends.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Digital Trends: With the launch of Chrome 69, Google stunned users last week with a surprising decision to no longer display the "www" and "m" part of the URL in the Chrome search bar, but user backlash forced Google to soften its stance. Google's course reversal, although welcomed by users, is only short term, and the search giant said it will change course once again with the release of the Chrome 70 browser....

Critics have argued that by not displaying the special-case subdomains, it was harder for users to identify sites as legitimate, and the move could lead to more scams on the internet. Others go as far as questioning Google's motives for not displaying the "www" and "m" portion of a web address, and these users speculated that the move may be to disguise Google's AMP -- or Accelerated Mobile Pages -- subdomain to make it indistinguishable for the actual domain....

With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the 'www' portion of a web address inside the search bar, but it will continue to display the 'm' subdomain. "We are not going to elide 'm' in M70 because we found large sites that have a user-controlled 'm' subdomain," Google Chromium product manager Emily Schecter said. "There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled."

ZDNet notes that while Chrome's billion-plus users were surprised, "Apple's Safari likewise hides the www and m but it hasn't caused as much concern, likely because of Google's outsized influence over the web and Chrome's dominance of the browser market."

TechRepublic quotes a community feedback post that had argued that "Lying about the hostname to novices and power users alike in the name of simplifying the UI seems imprudent from a security perspective."

144 comments

  1. don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    URLs should be displayed as they are, not interpreted, not dumbed down for dumb users, not altered in any way.

    Anything else poses security risks to people who know what they're doing, and further enables absolute idiots who have no business being anywhere near a computer and are too stupid to figure out even the basics of how anything works. We all have enough trouble with those.

    Speaking of idiots, in about 5 posts expect to see some moron trying to say this is all Donald Trump's fault since every other discussion around here seems to devolve into that.

    1. Re:don't mess with URLs by Script+Cat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This, and It should display the resolved IP address too. There's no reason not to show it, except to keep people stupid.

    2. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There's no reason for the average person to know the resolved ip address and it's easy enough to find.

    3. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Speaking of idiots, in about 5 posts expect to see some moron trying to say this is all Donald Trump's fault since every other discussion around here seems to devolve into that.

      Well, those comments ARE Trump's fault. :-P

    4. Re:don't mess with URLs by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, it's not his fault, but he is an idiot and you brought up both him and his idiocy. You don't want discussion of the idiot in chief, don't bring him up yourself.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re: don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump? I blame Climate Change.

    6. Re:don't mess with URLs by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd have thought they'd have learned this lesson when half the browsers decided to hide the "http://" portion.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BRONALD! GE-SCHRUMP!!!

    8. Re: don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is it supposed to handle round Robin records?

    9. Re:don't mess with URLs by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 0

      In what way is this a security problem? You see the base domain, what difference is www or m?

    10. Re: don't mess with URLs by IllIlIllIlIlIIIlIlIl · · Score: 0

      Have a great...

      KK. .k. H KK. .k. C KK. .k.
      KK. k . I KK. k . L KK. k .
      KK k .. L KK k .. I KK k ..
      KKk u . L Kkl ux. N Kk lan.
      KK k .. A KK k .. T KK k ..
      KK. k . R KK. k . O KK. k .
      KK. .k. Y KK. .k. N KK. .k.

      Hillary for KKK President!

    11. Re: don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am tired of the likes of you. Gooogle only does this so they can hide their own url tracking. Most older users go directly to the url bar.

    12. Re: don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More pressing question: how did Google do this? Is my browser constantly updating settings to whatever Google's server says? Even without a version upgrade???

    13. Re:don't mess with URLs by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although it's common for www.mysite.com to be a CNAME for mysite.com, this is not always the case. This means Chrome might display the same URL for two different web pages.

    14. Re:don't mess with URLs by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On many sites there's useful www.foo and useless www.m.foo; seeing the m lets you know that a link you followed led you to the broken version, so you can immediately rectify that. Not so if that part of the URL is hidden.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    15. Re:don't mess with URLs by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To me this is the issue - simple usability.

      If you accidentally land on an m.site.com url from a search result the way to figure out if you should look for the non-mobile version is to look at the subdomain.

    16. Re:don't mess with URLs by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      URLs should be displayed as they are, not interpreted, not dumbed down for dumb users, not altered in any way.

      Did they fix it to show the full URL, including http:/// or https:/// ? Because the Chrome I have strips the http/https:// uri. I disabled the url mangling thing in settings.

    17. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      An IP address does not identify a website. A DNS and cert does. IP address are meant to be assumed arbitrary when it comes to security, except root DNS and other such critical services.

    18. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See here and here

      A few examples from the issues above:

      * "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com".
      * "http://www.example.www.example.com" turns to "example.example.com"
      * "www.m.www.m.example.com" becomes "example.com".

      Obviously this is all screwed up, and a web site at "example.com" and "www.example.com" and "m.example.com" can be completely different.

    19. Re: don't mess with URLs by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      The same way it handles square Robin records?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      URLs should be displayed as they are, not interpreted, not dumbed down for dumb users, not altered in any way.

      Correct. The site operators are free to ditch the "www" part if they consider it unnecessary.

    21. Re: don't mess with URLs by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      I may just quit using Chrome. They make a bad call, back pedal because the people that matter hated it, and then rub shit in thier face by saying it's coming back. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    22. Re: don't mess with URLs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace Google Chrome with Chromium.

    23. Re:don't mess with URLs by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It was even worse when they hid "m.", as these are often reduced functionality versions of websites, and it is sometimes important to be able to see that you've ended up there by mistake. I notice twitter has already switched from m.twitter.com to mobile.twitter.com to counter this.

    24. Re:don't mess with URLs by rossz · · Score: 1

      The people who know what to do with an IP address already know how to look up the ip address. And we are a significant minority. There is no need to clutter the display with information that is absolutely useless to the overwhelming majority of users.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    25. Re:don't mess with URLs by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Agree...full URL and especially protocol have to be displayed. Removing this is not only unnecessary, but can also lead to incorrect assumptions (after all, a site with www can be different than one without). Dropping the protocol is weakening security.

  2. They can do what they like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use Chrome because Google's engineers are idiots. I realized this from the first day I tested it and there was no menu bar, nor any option to restore it. Firefox and Edge are plenty for me.

    1. Re:They can do what they like by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

      because Google's engineers are idiots.

      Riiiiigght. Let's call the creators of the most successful search engine algorithm on the planet idiots. Misdirected by management? OK. Idiots? Hardly.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:They can do what they like by sjames · · Score: 2

      Why do you presume the same people are working on both projects?

    3. Re:They can do what they like by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      What's a menu bar? Is it this thing described on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I don't think I've seen one in any of the programs I use. What's so awesome about it that made the entire world dump it?

      But on a more serious note, Edge... Menu Bar... You're trolling off the deep end.

    4. Re: They can do what they like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not as stupid as someone who can't fix Apple's punctuation bug in their browser configuration.

    5. Re:They can do what they like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that DOES NOT have a menu bar is either configured so that the menu bar shows, always; or that thing gets deleted.

      End of Line.

    6. Re: They can do what they like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bug is Slashdotâ(TM)s bug, broheim.

    7. Re:They can do what they like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, the most successful web browser on the planet then.

    8. Re: They can do what they like by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Anyone can spend billions promoting something that people care little to nothing about and make it the most successful. People don't give a rats ass about the browser. It is the OS of the web. Give me my internet and get the fuck out of the way.

      It certainly is not the best. They roll out bugs nearly every week. People notice when the internet quits working.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  3. Yes. End of story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The URL bar should display the URL.
    The URL contains a domain. It should display that domain. There is no reason to lie about the location. It is important if I am at sub.domain.tld or domain.tld. Those are different locations, served, in theory, by different machines.

    If something as simple as a "www" overwhelms you, please tell your legal guardian that you have an exacerbation, and maybe a computer has become too much for you entirely. You certainly won't be tying your own shoes anymore at that level of mental disability.

    1. Re: Yes. End of story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently we now call it the 'search bar.' At least, Google wants us to.

    2. Re:Yes. End of story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a tiny percentage of people spend substantial time reading RFCs and studying TCP/IP protocols. The vast majority of people could not be bothered to learn all the technical details of how the internet works. And nor should they be required to do so.

    3. Re:Yes. End of story. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That is not related.

      Remember the ISO/OSI Layer model.

      Each layer has to know how to operate the layer below to communicate with an remote entity on the same layer. But not with any deeper layer. (That's the whole point of it!)

      So Layer 8 (the user) needs to know how to use the http-Layer, but nothing about the transport, switching or physical layer. Yes, convenience is a thing, but you shouldn't make it harder than necessary for people who want to know what urls are by hiding or disfiguring them.

      Even if making it easy for the user is a good thing, if Level 8 wants to learn about Level 7, that's a good thing too. But indeed he should not be required to learn about TCP and IP.

      --
      bickerdyke
  4. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google should PERMANENTLY stop fiddling with this bullshit. The thing in the address bar is not a aol or compuserve keyword. It's an URL, that's a protocol, a hostname, and then whatever random trash you need to feed the webmonkeys' infernal machine to give it what you want -- which might be a file name, lots of parameters, or whatever else. Trying to hide some part of it because it confuses the lusers will not un-confuse the lusers, they are permanently confused anyway. It will now also confuse the slightly-more-savvy, and annoy the experts.

    I say we really ought've come up with a better interface than google, mozilla, or redmond, or really most everyone else "big", have managed so far. Something that Just Does Not Care about what lusers "think", but is straight-up clear and honest about the technical side of things. The absence of such a thing just goes to show that nobody knowledgeable is actually active in this space. Webmonkeying breeds webmonkeys. Whodathot.

    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oracle lost MySQL, open office, and other blather, because they not only couldn't read the marketplace -- they were overbearing and heavy handed.

      Google Chrome can only implement so many mistakes before market share moves away, and someone can always fork it. This kind of change -- a missing www, doesn't seem to me, to be enough to cause a mass loss of users. But it shows a heavy-handedness, an excessive zeal to manipulate using market share, and bad decision making all in one.

      Which means? More of this may come.

      In this market, you can see dominant players fade to nothingness in half a decade. A couple of years can see massive losses.

      So, more of this? Means less of Chrome, I'd say...

    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except google knows when market share is moving away and can correct it. oracle had no insight to such trends

    3. Re:No. by HumanEmulator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not going to stop fiddling, because the long-term goal is to eliminate URLs from the interface. They want you to do Google searches for websites instead of entering some "confusing" direct address. Hiding more parts of the URL is another gradual step towards making the address bar into a pure Google search bar. Average-Joe user will see no harm in this and probably even think it's a good idea.

  5. stuff that works by pD-brane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why change things all the time (and waste the users' time) when things don't get better? I.e., why not leave the URL alone?

    simplifying the UI

    How is removing information like www. a simplification of the user interface?

    1. Re:stuff that works by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      I guess google looked at URLs and decided that not displaying http:/// or https:/// was too hard. /s

      If they're eliminating the www, does this mean they will also get rid of the ftp for ftp servers?

    2. Re:stuff that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is this ftp thing?

    3. Re: stuff that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fewer!

    4. Re:stuff that works by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is removing information like www. a simplification of the user interface?

      In the same way as only offering one flavour of sandwich at the canteen simplifies buying lunch.

      You will eat / watch what we want you to.

    5. Re:stuff that works by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      I’m going to assume that you are not trolling. FTP is a protocol for file transfers (unencrypted if you are not doing frp over tls) it has fallen out of fever lately due to restrictive firewalls usualy blocking it so it is often more convenient (at least for downloads) to just having them on a web server.

    6. Re:stuff that works by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Why change things all the time (and waste the users' time) when things don't get better? I.e., why not leave the URL alone?

      simplifying the UI

      How is removing information like www. a simplification of the user interface?

      Same reason we don't show the port number - it's usually pointless information that is irrelevant. And no I'm not saying it's always useless, and that there's no case where this won't be annoying or harmful, but obviously it does simplify the address. Those people posting on this story with unwavering views that this is a non-changable thing, are forgetting that we already remove information from the URL.

    7. Re:stuff that works by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      This was the downfall of Gnome, KDE, and Firefox. Damn, Chrome is so powerful now and CSS and HTML are so much more advanced than the past that I don't think another browser can pop up to replace it sadly.

    8. Re:stuff that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a secretarial job where one of my tasks is copying loads of URLs to various (mostly informational) websites to documents with short write-ups to pass them onto other people to do I-don't-know-what with. It's extremely boring and I'm the only one here who can touch type, so I've got a lot of time on my hands, so I tend to fiddle around with the URLs to see what still works. In practice, you can usually replace http:// with https://, you can always delete www. and you can always delete a trailing /. But sometimes there are large parts of the URL that the server actually doesn't care about, e.g. there might be something like .../123456/interesting-title where it still works if you remove /interesting-title.

    9. Re:stuff that works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, how did I miss this when I clicked preview? I guess I'm still half asleep. I used ‘I've had’ because I intended to add a ‘for years’ somewhere in that sentence. So if you were wondering why I switched to present tense, well this is why.

    10. Re:stuff that works by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Same reason we don't show the port number - it's usually pointless information that is irrelevant.

      The port number is only hidden when it's equal to the standard port number. If you see an HTTP or HTTPS URL without an explicit port number you still know exactly what the port is. The same is not true for domain names: with this UI change, "example.com" in the address bar could represent either "example.com" or "www.example.com", which do not necessarily refer to the same content, or even the same server.

      I don't see this as "simplifying" the UI. A better term would be "simplistic". UIs should be "as simple as possible, but no simpler". The rule that "www.example.com" can be shortened to "example.com" is too simple; that transformation loses information, and in doing so misleads the user about which site they're visiting, unless they're sophisticated enough to ignore what Chrome chooses to shows them and instead double-click on the address bar to get the real URL.

      If the goal is to simplify URLs, Google would do better to start an information campaign encouraging webmasters to drop the "www." prefix in links and marketing materials and implement a server-side redirect to the unadorned name in case users type it in anyway. However, the real problem isn't an obsolete prefix in the domain name but rather the long and cryptic path and/or query string which typically follows it.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  6. Chrome vs Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome is considered by most to be a real browser. Few think the same of Safari. It is the trashy thing Apple forces us to use on iOS. No one voluntarily use Safari.

    If Google wants Chrome to be thought of in the same light as Safari, the trash browser, they should continue breaking it.

    If Google wants Chrome to continue to be taken seriously they should act like it and stop playing Microsoft/Apple-like games. They should know better bit apparently do not.

    1. Re:Chrome vs Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, some people do actually use Safari on the desktop, despite your claim. Personally there are aspects of the Chrome UI that I dislike and it was for sometime, a bit of a resource hog.

      And the article is incorrect about safari dropping www. That happens often at the website level where the website itself redirects from www.domain to domain. That is not a function of the browser, the browser it following the re-direct and showing the correct data. www.cnn.com for example stays www.cnn.com. if I use the web shortcut from search, it usually goes to cnn.com, but that is the entry being supplied by search ( in this case google ), so again safari is working correctly.

      www.slashtod.com redirects itself to slashdot.com or one of the many tech.slashdot.com sub headings on the domain. so again safari is working correctly.

    2. Re: Chrome vs Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to write.

    3. Re: Chrome vs Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome is a piece of shit.

  7. Designed for the mentally disabed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Most products today seem not only to be designed for mentally disabled people (which would be OK) but for *exclusively* for them.

    E.g. I have become literally unable to use a modern Apple product, or parts of modern Windows, etc, unless I am either so drunk I can barely walk, or I deliberately think "How would a *complete* idiot approach this?". Then suddenly, it becomes easy.

    That really is my main problem with computers today. And product choices available in general.
    It has become so cumbersome, and limited (crippled even), that I have to nearly build my own OS, just to have something usable.

  8. The headline is exactly incorrect by Junta · · Score: 5, Informative

    "With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the ‘www’ portion of a web address inside the search bar"

    They are putting the 'm.' back in, not www. They are basing this on a rough idea of not knowing of a 'www.' that differs from the top level of a 'large' site, rather than some hard and fast rule.

    The simple fact of the matter is it is a dumb idea. It doesn't make urls any friendlier (who in the world honestly believes that www. and m. are the thing that can make urls hard?), but it does potentially cause confusion.

    As to calls of 'but Apple can...', the difference is that browser has less than 4% of the share of the desktop market, and those people are the unbelievably loyal to Apple. On the mobile browser, the url situation is already pretty useless given the limited screen real estate.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by Junta · · Score: 1

      Didn't realize that in chrome 69 they changed and 70 is next, not the reversal... in any event.. ugh..

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must not be that loyal. Macs are about 10% of market share in worldwide personal computer sales. 4% use Safari means more people opt for other browsers on the Mac.

      So no.

    3. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't make urls any friendlier (who in the world honestly believes that www. and m. are the thing that can make urls hard?), but it does potentially cause confusion.

      I don't think this is really about “www” or “m”. It’s probably the first in a series of longer-term changes Google intends to make which benefits them more directly - perhaps by obscuring the fact that people are viewing pages through some custom Google domain, like AMP.

      I suspect Google’s longer-term play is to somehow get people viewing the web but never actually leaving google.com - more or less adopting one of Facebook’s operational principles. But it starts with a relatively innocuous move like this one.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is really about “www” or “m”. It’s probably the first in a series of longer-term changes Google intends to make which benefits them more directly - perhaps by obscuring the fact that people are viewing pages through some custom Google domain, like AMP.

      I suspect Google’s longer-term play is to somehow get people viewing the web but never actually leaving google.com - more or less adopting one of Facebook’s operational principles. But it starts with a relatively innocuous move like this one.

      So making the Google Chrome web browser into the America OnLine (AOL) application in which everything you do is determined by Alphabet Inc. Their version of the World Wide Web can be called Alphabet OnLine (AOL) too.

    5. Re: The headline is exactly incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truly rebellious portion of the users of Apple desktop PCs are those who use the Edge browser rather than Safari.

    6. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The University of Leicester has different sites on le.ac.uk (Sitecore-based website running on IIS) and www.le.ac.uk (CWIS, or Corporate Web Information System, running on Apache).

      For example, https://www.le.ac.uk/cm/arr/home.html is the webpage of the "Association for Radiation Research" whereas https://le.ac.uk/cm/arr/home.html is a 404 page.

    7. Re:The headline is exactly incorrect by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      shouldn't they hide the END of urls then?

      If you want to hide that www.slashdot.amp.google.com is served using AMP on Google servers instead of www.slashdot.com, dies hiding the www really help?

      --
      bickerdyke
  9. Re:Hiding information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the methods used by the Left.

    And the Right. And humans in general, and people who lie by omission in particular.

  10. User backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I genuinely thought a /.er going by the pseudonym of 'backlash' has convinced google to do otherwise.

  11. Don't chucklefuck the url by xack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doing so makes Chrome the Phisherman's friend. Pale Moon seems to be the only modern browser that has the courage to show the full url by default.

    1. Re:Don't chucklefuck the url by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff. Pale Moon modern. Good one. Even Basilisk is backwards-looking.

    2. Re: Don't chucklefuck the url by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Whenever I install NetBSD one of the first things I do is build SeaMonkey from source. This builds a good foundation of dependencies for a modern desktop. Usually, I then build fvwm2, so I have a modern window manager, too. The tab window manager (twm) is a built in part of the X11 system, but it's kind of primative.

    3. Re:Don't chucklefuck the url by swillden · · Score: 1

      Doing so makes Chrome the Phisherman's friend. Pale Moon seems to be the only modern browser that has the courage to show the full url by default.

      The Chrome team believes that URLs are the Phisherman's friend. IMO, we made a mistake when we allowed general Unicode URLs. We should instead have defined for each language the precise set of characters allowed, and required every URL to use characters from a single language.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Don't chucklefuck the url by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      The Chrome team believes that URLs are the Phisherman's friend. IMO, we made a mistake when we allowed general Unicode URLs. We should instead have defined for each language the precise set of characters allowed, and required every URL to use characters from a single language.

      Fine. So check for that instead and mark domains with non-locale or lookalike characters.

    5. Re:Don't chucklefuck the url by swillden · · Score: 1

      The Chrome team believes that URLs are the Phisherman's friend. IMO, we made a mistake when we allowed general Unicode URLs. We should instead have defined for each language the precise set of characters allowed, and required every URL to use characters from a single language.

      Fine. So check for that instead and mark domains with non-locale or lookalike characters.

      Would only work if it the characters allowed were defined in a standard, and we added some mechanism for domain owners to specify what locale is allowed for URLs in their domain. As it is, there's no way to distinguish the legitimate from illegitimate URLs. You could pick some rules that would be right 99.9% of the time, but would incorrectly penalize legitimate URLs

      The mistake is made, URLs are what they are and they're not a trustworthy indicator, not even to people who know what they're doing much less the vast majority of users. URLs are broken and can't be fixed. I'm not sure what we should do instead (and neither is the Chrome team; they're experimenting), but we need something.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Don't chucklefuck the url by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      I don't care about what the site owners say; they could be evil. Wasn't that your point?

      The browser knows my locale. If I'm in en-GB, let me know if I hit a domain with maths characters (or Turkic, etc.). Yes, it will penalize websites outside of my locale, but maybe I want to be cautious there anyway. Sure, it's terrible, but it's still better than secretly hiding subdomain segments. Oh, the exciting things I could do with "mail.google.www.com."

      When .CORN is a TLD, we can have this fight again (yourbank.corn).

  12. Who do you trust? by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Who trusts www.domain.tld, but doesn't trust m.domain.tld? Is this really that big a deal for security?

    1. Re:Who do you trust? by Zuriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hiding the subdomain opens the potential to make a user named "www.www" and be given the user-specific subdomain www.www.somesite.com, which then displays as www.somesite.com which will seem legitimate, and other dumb things.

      www was never designed to have special privileges, so there's no protections in place to handle the basic stupid things that can happen when a browser decides to give it special treatment. Same goes for the "m" subdomain - sites have cheerfully been letting users create accounts with the username "m" and allocating them the m.site.com subdomain, because "m" doesn't mean anything special unless you decide to use it for something.

    2. Re:Who do you trust? by lordlod · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually in the initial implementation they dropped www regardless of the location in the url.

      So www.www.somesite.com became somesite.com

      And google.www.com became google.com

    3. Re:Who do you trust? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      It's not that I trust www.domain.tld but not m.domain.tld. It's that sometimes I want to be on the www site, and sometimes I want to be on the m site.

      Not everything has to be about security.

      That said, smarter people than me will probably come up with reasons.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Who do you trust? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A missed opportunity for a ".m" tld or ".www" tld

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    5. Re:Who do you trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never want to be on the m site. Almost always inferior.

  13. Re:Hiding information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Jews?

    Cap: income... wtf?!?

  14. this is outstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    four two long i has bin confoozed bye www and m and now dat dey r gon i is releafed.

    tank yu googul four maykeeng duh interweb simplur four me.

  15. What I want is by oldgraybeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a browser that works for interacting with the internet. I don't need a play toy that has a new version every week with features I need to try to turn off/ignore/find workarounds for. To the real world a browser is just a tool. Not an epic thing in itself. I don't use chrome much because I dislike their useless feature driven junk and it's huge foot print, slow performance, lousy UI, etc (starting 10 tasks). I also wonder what a browser made by a marketing company that makes money by selling out their users (data and privacy) is doing in the background.
    Do the task, Do it well, Fix broken things otherwise leave it alone! Most everything that is being added now is excess junk.
    The concept that developers should always be adding new features is a mistaken course. Constantly redesigning the UI is a waste. Make it work and work well then only add really important things when the need comes up. And resist adding junk and calling them features.
    And dumbing down and hiding things from the users is a mistake! Granted some don't have a good grasp on reality but such is life.
    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:What I want is by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I would PAY for a browser like that. I want one that just works, respects my privacy, and can be customized the way I like it.

    2. Re:What I want is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox does that. Disable autoplay, install Privacy Badger... there you go.

      Honestly, just being able to disable autoplay is a feature that made me choose Firefox over Chrome.

    3. Re:What I want is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and all the people who bitched & ditched about Firefox being updated too frequently and refused to use plug-ins to work around that issue or disable updates are the source of the problem.

      Why don't you suck it up and start using one of the firefox forks that have been around for nearly a decade now and do exactly what you're asking for?

      While you're at it, disable JS or in the least disable JS JIT compilation and refuse to use any site depending upon it for non-trivial implementation.

  16. Google can't please everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me that the difference here between Safari users accepting this and Chrome users not is just pure numbers of users. When you garner 60% plus of browser users. You make any change and more users will be upset then say a Safari user share of around 4%. Google could have probably silenced more of these users by offering a option to show full URl's if you want them. I myself am sort of tired of companies like Google now being the internet nanny of users creating a browser that defines what Google wants and not users. I don't use Chrome anymore for many reasons which are getting longer not shorter.

  17. the 'm' subdomain? Never heard of it. by lpq · · Score: 2

    Huh?

    What do they mean 'www' shouldn't be controlled by "users"...it's not for google to decide. Companies purchase domain names and different sub domains are for different things. Example -- if you don't go to www.vim.org, you won't get there. It's not the same as 'vim.org'. If you try to goto vim.org
    it says the host isn't found -- because no valid host is at vim.org -- only www.vim.org.

    How stupid is google to think they are the same?

  18. Take back market share from Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like how we unseated IE, we need to keep Chromes market share in check to make sure it isn't enough to dictate web standards. No individual browser should have more than 30% market share. Please install an alternative browser, preferably one that supports XUL extensions so Google dosen't have a monopoly on extensions either. Set up your non technical relatives and friends too.

  19. Chromium (not Chrome) version 69 doesn't do this by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  20. Re:the 'm' subdomain? Never heard of it. by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    Granted but 98+% of internet users will never be going to www.vim.org. Chrome is not considering individuals that use the internet for real work type things. Chrome is built for the end user consumer market. Where it is all about content consumption and online consumer sales.
    People are surprised when I tell them I don't use Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc I respond with I create tech and only use the internet as a resource and not much for recreation.
    For recreation I go out to the garage or down to my work shop.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  21. Why backlash? Use Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see the whole url and also get to keep it to yourself

  22. Safari Doesn't Hide It by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Safari has a "web site" view that shows the domain (and only the domain, with a lock/none for http/https). This view doesn't show the www or m sudomains (but does show others). It also doesn't show the rest of the URL. As soon as you ask Safari (by clicking), it goes back to a complete URL.

    Contrast this with Chrome, where I cannot even get it to display the protocol in any way. One's a simplification with the ability for more info. The other is Google being a dick.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  23. Re:the 'm' subdomain? Never heard of it. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    The 'm' subdomain is where a lot of sites host their mobile version. In fact, I think most mobile browsers will try the m subdomain if you don't specify one, before failing over to the www one.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  24. were they typed? by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 1

    Yes? Fucking leave the user input alone.

  25. this is going to make tech support harder by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    go to www.brand.com and do the thing

    im at brand.com and its not working

    no you have to be at www.brand.com

    ive typed that in but im at brand.com

    no, you need the www at the front, brand.com is a different site to www.brand.com

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:this is going to make tech support harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the proper way to fix this is for the folks at brand.com to make both work with an extra DNS entry.

      Not for google to hide where you are actually going.

  26. Hiding information is bad by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when Microsoft decided it's users were just too bone headed to understand complicated extensions like .txt and .exe, so they hid them? And how they then wondered why people were happily clicking on invoice.doc.exe and costing the economy billions of dollars?

    Google is the new Microsoft and they think everyone that isn't Google is stupid.

    1. Re:Hiding information is bad by nuckfuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember when? They STILL DO.

  27. Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google needs to get their ugly claws off the url structure of the internet, they wish to dumb it down and siphon everything through their amp of the jour...

  28. What in the f.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled.

    Can we gather up this so called community where consensus exists that users should not allow the user / client to control which domain they access and fire these idiots into the centre of the sun.

    Seriously technical people here, is there any legitimate reason that the www subdomain shouldn't be "user controlled"? I am all for letting web administrators control their side via re-directs or DNS entries, by why in the ever loving god should control of www be taken out of the user's hands anymore than it already is?

  29. Just testing their power projection, that's all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just testing their power projection, that's all...

  30. of course display www. by ReneR · · Score: 1

    That is the website service providing individual to decide, if they do not want to use www. or m. then that is their choice, if not then not. Otherwise it can even lead to confusion copying or typing URLs.

  31. Here is Googles Mantra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it ain't broke, let's try to fix in in a terrible way! I get that sometimes things need to change to push innovation, but this move doesn't do that. In their effort to "push the envelope", they completely missed the purpose of change and innovation in the tech world. Essentially, you don't make changes for the sake of change. It's dumb.

  32. in re Safari by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    ZDNet notes that while Chrome's billion-plus users were surprised, "Apple's Safari likewise hides the www and m but it hasn't caused as much concern, likely because of Google's outsized influence over the web and Chrome's dominance of the browser market."

    Actually it is pretty annoying. Safari has an option in the application preferences advanced tab to turn this malfeature off.

    However, although it shows the URL from the domain name forward, including the www. portion if present, it does not show the http:// portion.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:in re Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume there have been no complaints because, well, the general iThing user has neither the intelligence nor the experience to know any better.

    2. Re:in re Safari by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm wondering how popular Safari is, the stats here suggest desktop Safari has between 3.67% and 13% (!) of the desktop market, which... surprises me (13% is higher than the Mac's marketshare, 3.67% is high.) I never liked it when I used Macs, and it seemed to be half way between IE and Chrome/Firefox in functionality.

      It'd make a guess though that in any case most people probably won't notice that much, except being irritated when the URL bar is completely misleading.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  33. WTF there's even more stupidity than just "www" by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is another bit of user interface stupidity to this story. From TFA:
    Before reversing the changes it made, users were able to reveal the full web address — including the www or m subdomains — by double-clicking on the address bar in Chrome 69.

    Then from the original ZDnet article:
    and if you copy the simplified address and paste it elsewhere it will display the full address.

    So in the name of "simplification" Google now has introduced a text bar whose text changes depending on HOW you click on it, and whose text is not representative of the actual text which would be copied to the clipboard.

    This has got to be a WTF as big as the WTF about hiding the www in the first place. How could you screw up something as simple as a text entry field.

    1. Re:WTF there's even more stupidity than just "www" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google knows what's best for you. Don't question it or you'll get unpersoned.

    2. Re:WTF there's even more stupidity than just "www" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome? What's that?

    3. Re:WTF there's even more stupidity than just "www" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome? What's that?

      It's what they used to put on car fenders.

  34. This is a DNS administrator's business by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Informative

    To the person at Google who stated that www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain":

    In my experience, "www" is not typically a subdomain. It is a host name. For example, in your DNS you might have an A record that resolves "www" to the IP address of your web server, just as you might have an A record that resolves "ftp" to your FTP server, or whatever.

    The interesting thing about DNS, however, is that you can create an A record for a subdomain. This means you can make the "www" part of a URL optional by having "www.mydomain.com" and "mydomain.com" resolve to the same IP address (or group of addresses).

    So, Google, kindly do not fuck with my DNS naming preferences. When I pay to register a domain, that includes the right to determine what I do (and don't do) with the DNS for my domain. If I want to show "www" in my URLs, that's my bloody business, not yours.

    1. Re:This is a DNS administrator's business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if you use test1.www.domain.org test2.www.domain.org ?

    2. Re:This is a DNS administrator's business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder -- I really, really wonder.

      No one is beyond corruption. I've seen ISPs filter union websites, during a strike. I've seen all sorts of "abuse of power", so I wonder...

      What if someone started a competitor to Google Chrome, used the OSS version, fixed any issues like this? Would pages explaining why "disappear" or be reduced in ranking? Would the browser page itself be reduced?

      We know so little about the innards of Google search. Something so vital to democracy, to a clear understanding of what is really happening in the world. Google already MASSIVELY tweaks search results based upon you (if logged in), or your cookies, or whatever other identifier they can find -- and hand you search results they think will better match.

      Who audits that code? Who ensures that nothing funny is happening? Hmm?

    3. Re:This is a DNS administrator's business by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      What happens if you use test1.www.domain.org test2.www.domain.org ?

      In that example, test1 and test 2 are (presumably) host names, and www,domain.org is a subdomain.

    4. Re:This is a DNS administrator's business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have noted that for many Singapore government sites, it will accept www.site.gov.sg and site.gov.sg will show an error. I know it's stupid that they don't even redirect it to www.site.gov.sg.

      Now expect the change to create some hilarious support issues.

  35. Betteridge's Law of Headlines by AdamStarks · · Score: 2

    N- wait... *re-reads the title* Y... Yes?

    1. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      No. They should not temporarily bring back the "www". They should permanently bring back the full address display.

  36. Re:Hiding information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Jews?

    Cap: income... wtf?!?

    You've admitted that Jews are human, maybe there's some glimmer of hope for you yet.

  37. Re:the 'm' subdomain? Never heard of it. by ancientt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that you're generally wrong, but I would like to contest a minor point.

    Chrome is built for the end user consumer market.

    I think the better description would be to say Chrome is marketed to consumers. It's a subtle difference, but I think it leaves the clarity to say specifically that Chrome is built to further Google's goals. One of Google's main goals is to get consumers to use their system.

    We've all seen people go to google.com to search for facebook rather than going to facebook.com directly. That's a win for Google. Google would really win if people forgot URLs exist. Then the only way to get to any website would be by having Google search for it, at least for most people. How could that happen? In small steps where first the http or https is hidden since most people don't know or care why it exists. Then after people get used to that, the next step is to hide other parts of the URL that people don't care to understand. Subdomains mean nothing to most people, TLDs are next. Really, what's the difference for most people? That's where Chrome is headed and what it is built for.

    The real tragedy is that most people will be happier with it.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  38. Why? What are they hiding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The www part of the url is to the best of my knowledge an address record to a host or possibly a group of hosts, as in a cdn.
    The public facing part of "yourdomain.com" if you will.
    Even if you do connect to a mobile site that is usually denoted by an m in front of what you are visiting.
    www.m.wikipedia.org and so on.

    This might end up being at the root of a ton of dns poisoning attacks in the coming months.

    When Microsoft hid file extensions by default an image.jpg and an image.jpg.exe would be indistinguishable from the average users perspective.

    Unless they are actually up to something that they want to hide, this has Hanlon's razor dragged all over it.

  39. Idiocy is not the opposite of intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even highly intelligent people can have their perception and actions distorted by triggers due to traumata or NLP or simply being raised into it before they became mature individuals.

    Society in the Google world is nuts on so many levels, that is is completely realistic, that somebody can design the most beautiful algoritm ever, but treat other people horribly and have no clue how people outside of his world think.

    But reality cannot be condensed to a few simple dumb thought-terminating clichee phrases. Which is why it is always at a disadvantage against people like you.

  40. Yes, absolutely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm never quite sure if I'm visiting web sites on the World Wide Web with my web browser, so I need to see “www” everywhere I look. Because I'm retarded.

  41. The www absolutely needs to be there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some websites differentiate between www.domain.com and domain.com. For instance, mail.domain.com could also exist, even for webmail. Removing the www is just dumbing down the web for the lusers.

  42. Re:Hiding information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAS WACIST!111!!1one1!eleven

  43. Yes, they should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want to make this optional and people want to hide important parts of an address and rely on 'google matching' instead, then great. But they should not just make these decisions for people that effect a fundamental way of how the internet works, just to tip the balance of traffic in their favor ( where their paying customers get preference over the 'actual' address ).

  44. You Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't realize they did until seeing the headline of this story....Weird.

  45. Re:Watching Trump hang from his fat neck, lol by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Secret Service has found your IP and will 'cut' your cars break line when its rainy.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  46. Re:Watching Trump hang from his fat neck, lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Useless idiot, letting the Russians play you like a violin.

  47. Chrome uses website password to sign itself in! by KreAture · · Score: 1

    They did something else now too.
    If you are NOT signed into chrome, and try to sign into the website youtube, chrome uses your information and password that you tried to give to accounts.google.com and signs itself into google so you are now signed into chrome!
    Signing out of chrome again also signs you out of youtube...

  48. I warned you all you idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fucking said this would happen when they started hiding the http and now https but nooo you all said I was making a mountain out of a mole hill... "it's fine!" you said, "you're whining about nothing! you can click on the address bar and copy the address to get the URL!"

    Well this is your comeuppance! I hope you enjoy it while I'm stuck on my old browser that doesn't do this shit but can't access 50% of HTTPS sites because of you fuckwits.

    And it won't stop there, you watch, they'll remove the .com/.net part off the end next, then the path. Enjoy!

    The mainstream web has been turned into a shithole for morons.

    I never thought I'd say this but I'm starting to miss gopher.

  49. What's the DNS say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe instead of www.RichardsWineCasks.com, Chrome could display Dick's Butts in the URL bar. That's how useful getting rid of the "www" is. Frankly, I'm unhappy about the removal of the protocol prefix.

  50. "most users" by dkman · · Score: 1

    Because "most users" don't know the difference is not, by itself, a good reason to hide information. They will never learn if you hide the information.

    Educated consumers are better for the economy, so don't go out of your way to make things dumber.

    --
    I refuse to sign