Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 497 posts

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#121

Post by eatmygodetia »

magicalist wrote: post #101
inopinatus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison to AOL was my first thought also. Basically, Google have lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.

> The comparison to AOL was my first thought also It doesn't really make sense, though. The AOL thing was always things like "visit AOL keyword lord of the rings" at the end of trailers, and that would take you to the marketing site. If Chrome wanted to do that, in the example gif the keyword wouldn't be just "en.wikipedia.org" for the URL article, it would be something like "wikipedia URL" that would bring you back…

I'd say that it's just as common to hear "google Our Brand" as "www.brand.com" at the end of television adverts now. That's entirely anecdotal, but Google (or other search engines, but basically Google) has been for a long time the way to access sites.

I see people every day searching for a brand and clicking rather than appending ".com". It's more convenient. If Google can profit off laziness, they will.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#122

Post by 0xUser »

If you like chromium ecosystem, I suggest trying the Vivaldi browser. https://vivaldi.com

It won me over with (1) the ability to split the window into multiple tabs (2) ability to turn any webpage into a side-bar "applet-thingy" -- great for having whatsapp, todoist, always on the side while you switch tabs.

It also has plenty of other features aimed at power-users.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#123

Post by hu3 »

Ndymium wrote: post #94
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows, since we dont know if the deal will renew

The deal has already been renewed: https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/mozilla_google_search...

> our source told us Moz will likely pocket $400m to $450m a year between now and 2023 from the arrangement

Why in hell did they lay off MDN, Rust/Servo and Dev Tools teams?

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#124

Post by maest »

mrmcd wrote: post #98
donor20 wrote: post #68

Wow - top posts are conspiracy theories. "The only reason to do this..." "This is a security issue..." Google has millions / billions of users. From a security standpoint the focus should be entirely on the root domain, that is the only really meaningful root of trust. If you are talking about a security issue - the KEY security issue is ANY lack of clarity around root domain. "Showing the full URL may detract from t…

The degree to which HN is obsessed with AMP is hilarious at times. You'd think every single one of the 100k engineers that work there do nothing but dream up ways to trick people into using AMP for some secret illuminati end goal. If you don't like AMP, that's fine. If you don't like this UX change that's fine too (and I suspect will be easily fixed with an extension). But maybe consider for a moment that not every s…

I'm all for balanced debate, but strawmanning doesn't help anyone.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#125

Post by ArmandGrillet »

scott_s wrote: post #107

Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…

"many URLs are meaningless": many, but not important ones such as URLs from Reddit and GitHub.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#126

Post by [deleted] »

avasthe wrote: post #79
dessant wrote: post #19

When the final version is implemented in a couple of years you will no longer see any URL, that way it won't be as evident that most sites on the web will be loaded from Google. Google is also attacking this issue from a different perspective with Signed Exchanges [1][2], to fake the URL and ensure their success in becoming the gatekeepers of the internet. If you refuse to become a content provider for Google's visio…

If the webshits didn't bloat the web like this, AMP wouldn't have happened. "But all hipsters I know have latest macbook pro" has been the standard answer from all of them.

[deleted]

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#127

Post by dessant »

youngtaff wrote: post #96
dessant wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lean websites are NOT featured in the Top Stories carousel, only AMP websites, so this is not primarily about page speed. If page speed would be the main reason for AMP, they'd simply continue to demote websites that have poor performance in search results, and they'd curtail the main bloat from sites in Chrome, ads and trackers. But I agree that Google has used this talking point successfully so far to bully publish…

Google plans to change that as part of it's current focus on Core Web Vitals and non-AMP sites will be eligible to be in the Top Stories carousel if they're fast enough

That's interesting, here's [1] an overview of Web Vitals. Do you have a source for Google's timeline to enable this for Top Stories?

[1] https://web.dev/vitals/

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#128

Post by [deleted] »

magicalist wrote: post #101
inopinatus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison to AOL was my first thought also. Basically, Google have lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.

> The comparison to AOL was my first thought also It doesn't really make sense, though. The AOL thing was always things like "visit AOL keyword lord of the rings" at the end of trailers, and that would take you to the marketing site. If Chrome wanted to do that, in the example gif the keyword wouldn't be just "en.wikipedia.org" for the URL article, it would be something like "wikipedia URL" that would bring you back…

[deleted]

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#129

Post by davidu »

mrmcd wrote: post #98
donor20 wrote: post #68

Wow - top posts are conspiracy theories. "The only reason to do this..." "This is a security issue..." Google has millions / billions of users. From a security standpoint the focus should be entirely on the root domain, that is the only really meaningful root of trust. If you are talking about a security issue - the KEY security issue is ANY lack of clarity around root domain. "Showing the full URL may detract from t…

The degree to which HN is obsessed with AMP is hilarious at times. You'd think every single one of the 100k engineers that work there do nothing but dream up ways to trick people into using AMP for some secret illuminati end goal. If you don't like AMP, that's fine. If you don't like this UX change that's fine too (and I suspect will be easily fixed with an extension). But maybe consider for a moment that not every s…

You say this as if those engineers (and it's not 100,000) are all voting in a democratic decision-making process on feature direction. It's a very small number of senior leaders who make these calls.

Remember, Sundar used to be in charge of the Google Toolbar. That was his claim to fame inside of Google before Chrome.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#130

Post by signal11 »

eatmygodetia wrote: post #121
magicalist wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The comparison to AOL was my first thought also It doesn't really make sense, though. The AOL thing was always things like "visit AOL keyword lord of the rings" at the end of trailers, and that would take you to the marketing site. If Chrome wanted to do that, in the example gif the keyword wouldn't be just "en.wikipedia.org" for the URL article, it would be something like "wikipedia URL" that would bring you back…

I'd say that it's just as common to hear "google Our Brand" as "www.brand.com" at the end of television adverts now. That's entirely anecdotal, but Google (or other search engines, but basically Google) has been for a long time the way to access sites. I see people every day searching for a brand and clicking rather than appending ".com". It's more convenient. If Google can profit off laziness, they will.

Google doesn't like you using the term "google " because that opens the door towards a genericized trademark (like xerox or cellophane), but plenty of advertisers buy keywords or a phrase on Google and then use terms like "search for to find out more" in their radio/TV/outdoor ads.
Post reply on HN