![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Mozilla Mozilla](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mozilla_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
Google Prefetching for Mozilla Browsers 424
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"
Watch for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that you have things like 'rel=next' that expect the user to go to some next "logical" page, but no structure to a site to encourage that logic. You get people upping bandwidth costs and slowing down browsing time because the site maintainer THINKS they'll go to some next page but the site design actually ENCOURAGES them to go to some other, unrelated page.
In OSS, a lot o
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are extensive studies from third parties on what people look at and do when they search on google. And you know what, they found people tend to look at and go to the top result, and don't even glance below the top few results most of the time.
I'd expect that a company with the means to do the necessary research wouldn't go about implementing this kind of hackish "feature set" until it had thought things through a little better.
I'd expect that Google has better figures on where people go to from Google's search pages than anyone else.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
I've always wondered about this. A lot of sites and search engines will have each URL point back to a redirect script on their site, so that they can track the clicks. Others will use some javascript to do the same thing.
Google does neither, so how would they know what people are clicking on? It seems to me to be incredibly valuable data, especially for a search engine. They could weed out t
google tracks clicks sometimes (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:google tracks clicks sometimes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the tilde-feature is properly documented [google.com].
It is called synonym search and it really does some dictinary lookup, as it doesn't search for just the term entered but also its synonyms.
Seems quite useful to me... To be honest, I had never heard of it before I read this thread here :)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Interesting)
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):
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
What hoax? He disagrees with the basis of the study. That doesn't mean the study is fraudulent (that IS what the term "hoax" implies) nor that his disagreement is valid. In addition, his complaint is that the study may not actually be useful for marketeers... NOT that it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
PS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I'd like them to prefetch the "next search page" as well... at least, that would tend to speed up *my* googling. I'm probably atypical, though, if they don't do it...
Re:PS... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.google.ca/preferences?hl=en [google.ca]
Re:PS... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2, Interesting)
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).
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
It is for people like you that the created pre-fetching. If you actually click on what is pre-fetched, the page loads faster. If you click on something else-the pre-fetch is aborted. Nothing to loos
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Luckily I "flatted" myself for GPRS (I have 400MB for 30 days at a flat rate), but it would be better if I can chose search by search if
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
The page you cite in support appears to be an argument specifically against prefetching pages with the rel=next attribute. As you say:
That's a flaw in firefox's prefetching logic, not in site-designers' use of rel=next, which was never intended to be used to indicate links the user was most likely to follow.
In any case, google is actually using rel="prefetch", which *is* intended for that purpose. And google's use looks pretty sensible: "This tag is only inserted when it is likely that the user will click on the first link." From experimenting it appears that it's only used on some searches; e.g. the example they give is the first hit on a search for "stanford". So presumably they have fairly good evidence that a user is actually likely to click on such a link--I suspect they have enough data on this that they don't need to just guess.
I think you're making some huge generalizations here based on very little evidence.
--Bruce Fields
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
"and it can really cause problems when so many people are moving from professional browsers to more amateur ones that test out these features in what they THINK is a mainly geek-oriented audience."
Precisely what browsers are you referring to? Perhaps you would care to let us know which browsers your highness believes to be "Professional" and which he believes are "more amateur". In general, I would contend the latter are actually superior browsers and that is why people move to them. Every browser I know of goes through a development, alpha, and beta stage to test features before final release. Also, google is implementing this, not a browser.
"I could see why someone at Google might think this is a good idea, but I'd expect that a company with the means to do the necessary research wouldn't go about implementing this kind of hackish "feature set" until it had thought things through a little better."
Perhaps they do not use rel=next attributes and believe they have a bit more data at their fingertips than you do. Maybe, just maybe, you are the one who has not performed any research and google has in fact examined a great deal of data. Maybe that data even tells them that the number of people who continue to the top search results is staggering.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
1) The preview text on the result already gave me the information I want
2) I just wanted to check for the corret spelling of the word (did you mean..?)
3) I just wanted to check how many results that search would lead to, or which sites would show up
4) I might just be playing with Google (googlefight, googlewhack, etc)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is confusing. First you say that prefetching doesn't work that well in practice and present a link to Simon Willison's blog. But the blog says that prefetching is an "excellent feature" except for a couple of quirks in Mozilla's implementation. Google does not trigger those quirks so they are irrelevant.
Then you go off on a tangent about how "real software engineers" think through their design decisions more than "open source hackers". This is totally contrary to my experience. I would more highly rate the software engineering of Mozilla against Internet Explorer, Unix versus Windows or Apache versus IIS. I could go through a long list of brutal design decisions in commercial software that did not hold up in the real world but I'll just mention Clippy and the Windows registry as two high-profile examples.
Finally, it is Google, a commercial software services company that is the topic of the article. So your whole argument is self-defeating. Either Google doesn't conform to your vision of real software engineering or the feature is not really at odds with real software engineering.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
Sweeeeet jebus, this has to be a troll...or you've never encountered any software written by "real" software engineers that had made poor design decisions, in which case you should go spend $100 on lottery tickets because you are, obviously, the luckiest person alive.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
so many people are moving from professional browsers to more amature ones ... whose maintainers and coders are just "hackers" or college kids ... not real software engineers.
Yeah, everyone's gonna be a lot safer staying with IE, right? Certainly the track record on critical vulnerabilities should be a strong indication.
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Watch for this... (Score:2, Insightful)
MSIE/MSN (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway it could be obvious that Google tries to establishes such alliances against his main concurrent (besides Yahoo).
Re:Who cares. (Score:2)
Does IE even support prefetching?
Padding? (Score:5, Interesting)
X-moz: prefetch
header, but how many server admins log this?
Re:Padding? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're referring to potential click-fraud that a malicious site may do by adding a bunch of "prefetch" links on their page that points to the ad, I seriously doubt it, since no one but the client's machine knows what the links are (since I believe they're loaded at the time the image is generated).
Perhaps an enterprising fraudster may write some clever javascript that waits for the google ad to load, and then generates the prelinks - but I doubt the browser would then notice the change and go prefetch them. Besides, it'd be easier to just make an invisible frame and set it's href location. But again, I doubt you can dynamically figure out what the google ad click URLs are with javascript alone.
Awsome (Score:2)
Re:Awsome (Score:2, Funny)
"Google uses a special prefetching feature in Firefox and Mozilla web browsers to provide this functionality, so results prefetching is not available in Internet Explorer or other web browsers."
Now, is it really easier to post a question and wait for an answer than to just read the article?
Link is broken (Score:5, Informative)
how about a link that works... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how about a link that works... (Score:2)
Here [makeashorterlink.com] is the correct URL through makeashorterlink.
I never thought speed was a problem with Google (Score:2)
Re:I never thought speed was a problem with Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I never thought speed was a problem with Google (Score:2)
- "You use Brand X? You don't have dandruff."
- "Exactly."
I hope they let us turn it off. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I hope they let us turn it off. (Score:2)
Considering that prefetching happens while you are currently reading a page and presumably not using your bandwidth, users get better performance from their dialup than when prefetching isn't working. Think about it...
Re:They turn it off for you. (Score:4, Informative)
This is Potentially Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof of concept: Google caught in anti-Semitism flap [zdnet.com]. Replace "anti-semitism" with "child pornography" and you'll understand what I'm getting at...
Re:This is Potentially Dangerous (Score:5, Funny)
Even More Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
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. Many people have already expressed concerns for those who have slow connections or who do not have unlimited access. This could also be used by spammers to verify people who are smart enough to have web-bugs disabled via cookie and image blocking on emails but who don't know about preloading if the Thunderbird people enable this in email (which would be foolish beyond belief).
I just think this concept is a horrible idea.
Re:Even More Problems (Score:3, Informative)
> 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.
Re:This is Potentially Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
broken link, here is the correct one (Score:3, Funny)
Link... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Link... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.google.com/help/features.html#prefetch [google.com]
I think I'll leave it off (Score:2, Insightful)
The last thing I want is for those pages to show up in the company's web access logs, so I think I'll skip this feature when I'm at work.
Re:I think I'll leave it off (Score:2)
S
Ack! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ack! (Score:2)
Comments (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Comments (Score:2)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't changing this value on the about:config screen do that?
Re:Comments (Score:3, Informative)
SetEnvIf X-moz ^prefetch prefetch_deny
Deny from env=prefetch_deny
Re:Comments (Score:2)
Re:Comments (Score:2)
Re:Comments (Score:2)
Result, not results, and then still not always (Score:5, Informative)
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).
How to turn it off yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How to turn it off yourself (Score:2)
This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)
You have an ADSL line with a really stingy cap (for instance BT in the UK offer a cheap service with a 1GB/month cap). I'm sure their customers will be happy about downloading pages they won't read.
You're a web admin that pays a lot for bandwith. I bet they'll be really happy that lots of people will be downloading their pages without ever looking at them.
You're at work surfing through a proxy that does filtering / logging and there are some dubious sites that get pre-fetched for you. Enjoy getting sacked for something you didn't do!
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm struggling to see any drawbacks to this great new technology!
Re:This is great! (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdotting a website by proxy??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Working? (Score:2)
On a related note, I use a similar trick/hack with my photo gallery. When viewing an image at full size, the page loads up the next image wrapped around with a css display:hidden attribute so the browser fetches the next image without displaying it a
Re:Working? (Score:2, Informative)
RE: uhoh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trouble at work, trouble with law (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Trouble at work, trouble with law (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Re:Nice (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Nice (Score:2, Interesting)
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 should be off by default.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for me it doesn't (Score:2)
There's no attribute in the document that comes down from google, there's no Link: header in the response, and (most convincingly) there's no entry in the proxy log. Nothing else is being downloaded, so it's not the browser waiting for idle time. I think Google's just not really using prefetch right now, despite their claims to the contrary.
This is under Windows Firefox 1.0
Re:Not for me it doesn't (Score:2)
Google/Firefox "Synergy" (Score:2, Interesting)
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- cooperation-on-link-prefetching/ [jall.org]
Or for more predictions on the Firefox/Google future in general:
http://www.jall.org/blog/2005/03/19/googles-future -plans/ [jall.org]
Google's search isn't that good nowadays (Score:2)
I do pretty specific queries.
Nowadays my searches seem to turn up tons of mailing lists with the same messages.
If I wanted mailing lists, I'd do the search in google groups...
That said, the mailing lists sometimes don't show up in google groups...
I think Page Rank is starting to fail. I'm not surprised actually. I'm actually surprised it worked for so long. Probably all that tweaking by the Google folk is keeping it mode
What if we don't want this? (Score:2)
The problem, especially with corporate users, is that you never know when google is going to return a work-unsafe document to a search. If your browser starts going after a porn site without your knowledge or consent, you still can nevertheless get in hot water with your company.
Here is the remark in the faq regarding this issue:
"We are considering adding UI for this preference (see bug 1666
Another concern (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Vulnerabilities and prefetching? (Score:3, Interesting)
great for slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Uhmm... actually, never mind
Re:Gone already? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.html#prefetc
Based on where it's inserting the space, I'd say both. (Submitter mangled, editor posted without checking.)
Re:Links (Score:4, Informative)
No they don't... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Links (Score:3, Informative)
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 ju
Yes - from the page with the bad link (Score:5, Informative)
2. Scroll down to the setting "network.prefetch-next" and set the value to "False".
Re:Yes - from the page with the bad link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But usually the top links on google (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:But usually the top links on google (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But usually the top links on google (Score:2)
Re:But usually the top links on google (Score:2)
But what I'd like to see is a "LESS like this" or "Not this!" link, to indicate the pages in question are NOT related to the link.
When I am searching for information on the Free Software package that implements the Microsoft Windows API under Unix-like systems, I do NOT want to be inundated with links for the beverage made from the fermented juice of grapes - so I want to be able to click on the myriad of vineyard links and say "
Re:But usually the top links on google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:another embrace and extend (Score:3, Informative)