Google Resumes Its Attack on the URL Bar, Hides Full Addresses on Chrome 86 (androidpolice.com) 231
An anonymous reader shares a report: Google has tried on and off for years to hide full URLs in Chrome's address bar, because apparently long web addresses are scary and evil. Despite the public backlash that came after every previous attempt, Google is pressing on with new plans to hide all parts of web addresses except the domain name in Chrome 86, this time accompanied by an admittedly hover animation. The new look builds upon the animation-less hover reveal that's already in testing, but in contrast to that method, the improved variant also displays the protocol and the subdomain, which remain invisible in the older version. That's achieved with a neat sliding animation that moves over the visible part of the URL to make space for the strings preceding it.
Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and no. This was true I think in the past.. You could serve up invisible ads, replacing them with 1x1 pixels and the like. But with everyting so massively rewritten to use javascript everywhere, the ads are being served up by the javascript itself. And those scripts know if the content was loaded or not. So even if it's ultimately hidden, you still have to waste all the bandwidth or the script will know you're trying to block ads. Many websites will just refuse to show any information at all if you have scripts block, or you block a third-party script or image.
Re:Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ok with the bandwidth usage. My aversion to ads is their visual intrusion. If Brave can block the appearance of the adds without those annoying "disable your adblocker" popups (which to me is really a "Disable Javascript on this page" notification . . .), then I'm willing to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
A question: I've had lots of websites (CNN is one, IIRC) try to block me when I use Firefox, despite having the AdBlock protection turned off for that site. The result is I can't browse those sites even with ad block turned off. What gives?
Re: (Score:3)
I just opened CNN in firefox and it works fine for me. You must have some extension causing problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla browser has politics??
New one on me.
I"ve used it since back when it was Netscape and I've yet to have anything political pop up on it or take me to a site I didn't want to go to or that was political one way or another....?
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla was donating money to political organizations.
Re: Back to Firefox it is then... (Score:2)
This is why I use Vivaldi. TONS of customizations for power users, syncing across desktop and mobile, built in ad blocking on mobile, and uses the fast same engine as Chrome.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that version had me badly pi$$ed off and I rated it a one star on Google Play, then I got hold of the APK for version 68 and turned off the auto-update and now I have resorted to manually updating the apps individually to avoid losing the last decent Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, just.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You could even label the choice "Do you want to hide details of the domain name so it is easier for hackers to mislead you?" so as not to obscure the purpose.
This is similar to the Windows strategy of hiding file extensions so hackers could send you a .exe in an email that said it was a jpeg. Only criminals can gain from it.
Stop giving Google your data: dump Chrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Chrome continue to install system services? (Score:2)
Does Chrome continue to install system services?
Move to Pale Moon? [palemoon.org] Firefox is also poorly managed, in my opinion. The Pale Moon release notes seem very professional.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped using Google Chrome a long time ago because it installed 3 system services in Microsoft Windows
Not the good reason. You have to do the stopping in the right order. 1) Windows 2) Chrome
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
You'll also find the dubiously named software_reporter_tool.exe running on occasion. Just Google taking a tally of your hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
And that shit is really naughty - kills files that it thinks you shouldn't have, I did lose a downloaded Garmin map that way. At least it was already on my navigator by then so no huge deal.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Neither Google nor Microsoft should be doing general scans of files outside of a voluntary virus type scan.
Re: (Score:2)
Google added anti-malware (by their definition) to Chrome a while back.
Google often sends encrypted extra data. (Score:2)
My opinion: Google (Alphabet, Inc.) should get a new CEO. Sundar Pichai [google.com] is not helping Alphabet make good decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use Pale Moon but it ran a lot slower than FF ever did for some reason after a while, despite it being stripped down.
Re:Stop giving Google your data: dump Chrome. (Score:5, Interesting)
Solved until Firefox follows Chrome, which it *always* does eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Has already happened on the mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a mobile device the last decent version is 68, the latest is totally FUBAR.
Re:Stop giving Google your data: dump Chrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dump Chrome, move to Firefox. Problem solved.
And change your search engine to DuckDuckGo.
Re: (Score:3)
It may not be the best on all metrics, but I will take it over Google and Chrome any day of the week.
Forcing Google Search (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forcing Google Search (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt it - if anything, they're copying Apple. I don't care to look up when Apple started doing this, but Safari and Mobile Safari both only show the domain name in the address bar. (Which isn't really an address bar - Apple just flat-out hides the address bar until you actively attempt to access it by scrolling up past the top of the document. Then, suddenly, the centered tab label becomes an address bar.)
And as Apple has no search product and currently defaults to Google thanks to a deal they have with Google, but otherwise Apple and Google sort of hate each other, it seems unlikely this is intended to drive people to Google Search.
So you can thank Apple for this example of wonderful UX design.
Re:Forcing Google Search (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, Safari on my desktop Mac shows the full URL on all the tabs I have open currently.
I'll have to go check my iPad and phone to see if the same, but I know I've not had problems cutting and pasting whole URLs from Safari mobile in the past to send on emails or text messages....
More of a longer term strategy (Score:5, Informative)
This is Google trying to eliminate all alternatives to Google Search
Probably not that. DId you follow how the Google Search results and the Google News results were presented to you in recent years?
Google News doesn't even bother to show you the actual link (eg a CNN link), this is a Google link that, then, redirects to the actual page. But on a mobile device, the actual news site is embedded in an iframe, and while you read the news you stay within Google (the parent frame). This way Google can "keep" you around thanks to a small "back" link on top (that belongs to Google, replacing virtually the browser back button)
Hiding the URL would hide the fact that while you visit a site from a Search, you're actually viewing an iframe, having Google on top, the URL bar in this case shows the Google site, not the "visited from search" site.
Never had it, never will (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just another example of this spyware trying to do its best to trick people into using only its services. Guaranteed at some point they will make it so the only way to get to a web site is through their own. You won't be able to go directly to the site of your choice.
Not to mention the killing of KISS. Why make it easy for people to see and use a URL bar when you can make it as complicated as making vichysoisse.
An "admittedly hover animation" (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure why this is a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't quite see how this is a problem. Most users have little interest in seeing all the elements in the path of a url. The biggest issue is, what is the domain. That can be obscured through various tricks, like the embedded username/password, which makes it more difficult to visually see exactly what domain you are on. Putting the focus on the domain solves this for most people.
As far as the full URL, as soon as you move your cursor up there, it shows you the whole URL, so it's not exactly gone. Even as a developer, I rarely care to just "see" the URL. Usually I'll also want to copy or edit it, in which case the whole URL will show up when you go to do that.
I'm pretty sure the majority won't care. And for the ones that are bothered, I suspect 99% of them are perfectly capable of figuring out how to toggle the config option. I'm not really that bothered about taking 15 seconds to make a one time change if it helps thousands of users better judge where they are and not make the mistake of adding their machine to a botnet. A minuscule inconvenience to help reduce a major problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people have little interest in seeing all the elements in the list of a grocery bill. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not sure why this is a problem (Score:4, Informative)
I'm tired of hiding everything, requiring 15 clicks to do anything, undiscoverable interfaces...
Fitts' Law. Make my life easier, not harder. I switched to Brave because FF and Chrome have dedicated themselves to making browsing a chore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then, make the domain bold, don't dumb down everything. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/08/14/1614247/ works fine, no?
Hiding stuff that's "too complex" is one sure way to ensure it remains "too complex" forever.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Then, make the domain bold, don't dumb down everything. "
Firefox has been doing exactly that for many years now. And even THAT can be turned off if you don't like it:
browser.urlbar.formatting.enabled false
And if you want the "httpXX" part showing, too:
browser.urlbar.trimURLs f alse
Re: (Score:2)
"The majority won't care" = "The majority can be led to do anything we want, especially if we can make money off it."
Re: Not sure why this is a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They did this before. It helped a little, but people still got confused. It wasn't clear enough what was going on. When people looked at the url, there was still a lot of junk and not as easy to digest it all.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue here is that you can't fix stupid.
You can hide various parts of the url, but it's not going to help the people that just don't understand what makes domain names safe or dangerous.
They're going to keep trying anyway, apparently. We're going to end up with something like the "idiot light" in a car, and we'll have to consult Google for information about what's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I think for most people and for most uses, it's not a problem. Most people don't pay attention to the URL, don't understand what a URL is, what it means, or how it works. It's just an arbitrary string that you put into the box to bring up a specific website. Insofar as you're dealing with those people, it doesn't matter much what displays in the address bar.
I can see why someone might like this. It's cleaner and highlights the domain. Arguably this might help a little to prevent phishing attacks, but
Re: (Score:3)
I'll note that Safari already does this. It just shows the domain. I use Safari constantly and never noticed. Personally, I don't think I'll have a problem.
If you care about not being tracked you may want to reconsider that. If you click on links in emails you receive, or send links to either people via email, there's often loads of redundant tracking info in those URL's. For example, do an Amazon search for products, then click on one of the products that show up. The URL you arrive at is FAR longer than what's needed to get to that web page. It's easy to see where the product ID ends and the tracking begins. Anything after the product ID contains info about
Re: (Score:2)
well, one issue will be when Chrome is lying to you about the actual domain because it is rendering an amp page off of their own servers.
Re: Not sure why this is a problem (Score:3)
The old "most people" card. Most people don't know how to overhaul an engine, but that does not mean we should start making cars (well, ICE cars anyway) without a hood that opens.
Please, don't advocate for making the LCD even dumber, and handcuffing the ones who know what they are doing.
Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, I bought approximately zero floppy disks for a few years.
Re: (Score:3)
"Innovation"? Try "Retrogression". "Go to AOL Keyword Turbotax"
Not again ... (Score:2)
Yes, because the domain name *is* the entire website. /sarcasm
Thanks again Google; I'll be sure to continue setting whatever options needed to disable this and always show the full URL, or as much as our Chrome overlords will allow us to see. (Reason #googol why I don't use Chrome as my main browser.)
Well, there is stupid and there is unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
This is both.
Re:Well, there is stupid and there is unacceptable (Score:4, Interesting)
This is both.
If you're a web developer, perhaps. But of the billion+ people who use Chrome, web devs are, to a first-order approximation, 0%. To the rest, everything after the domain name is noise... and the fact that that noise can be manipulated to fake the domain name is a huge problem.
I understand URLs -- heck, I even understand URIs and URNs! -- but I pretty rarely need to see the URL unless I'm going to copy and paste it, or maybe edit it. In both of those cases, the new Chrome works fine. You can look at the URL by hovering (though I can't think why I'd really care to do that, unless it's for a site I'm working on, and I mostly avoid that sort of work), or you can click to copy or edit, no additional steps required.
This change will make phishing significantly harder, while barely inconveniencing anyone who for whatever reason wants to see the URL. It's a good idea. All of the other browsers will end up copying it, because it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People who have a real need for the Caps Lock key are, to the billion+ people who use computers, 0% of the userbase too. Can we get rid of Caps Lock first, because it actually causes problems for the 99.9%+ of us
LOL. I disable the Caps Lock key on my machines, remapping it to be another control key :-)
there is literally no downside to anyone when it comes to showing full URLs? (and it's more than just "web devs" who need it.)
There's an enormous downside to showing full URLs. It facilitates phishing. For a few examples of the ways this is done, look at https://mlhale.github.io/nebra... [github.io]. The idea is that the browser should parse the URL and display only the actual domain name, which defeats nearly all of the attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
About 11 years ago Google pirated some copyrighted songs that my brother's band wrote. They made them available via their search engine.
This is interesting. You do know that search engines only provide links to content on other sites, right? Search engines don't actually host or distribute any content themselves. Were the "pirated" songs actually on a Google server, or somewhere else?
Re: (Score:2)
"You do know that search engines only provide links to content on other sites, right? Search engines don't actually host or distribute any content themselves." ICO music, maybe this is true (although Google owns YouTube, so the point is kind of moot). But at least as of several years ago (before I stopped using google.com as my search engine), when I would look for the PDF of some technical article and then try to copy its URL so I could include it in a bibliographic citation, the URL was actually google'
Re: (Score:2)
That probably was Google's HTML based PDF viewer which allowed you to view PDFs with any browser.
My "ungoogle" script (Score:3)
I've come up with a quick-n-dirty bash "unggogle" script to make Google links decipherable. This is especially usefull for PDF files. It's 3 steps...
1) Right-click and "Copy link location" of the Google search URL
2) Paste the link into a text file (e.g. foo.txt) with your favourite text editor. NOTE: ***IT MUST NOT LINEWRAP***
3) Execute the command... ./ungoogle2 foo.txt > bar.txt
where the "ungoogle2" script is...
#!/bin/bash /g
sed 's/%3A/:/g
s/%2F/\//g
s/%2520/
s/&usg.*$//
s/^.*url=//' ${1}
The real URL t
Re: (Score:3)
1. double-quote your variables, including positional args like $1. i.e. write "$1" or "${1}", not just bare unquoted $1 or ${1}.
BTW, "${1}" is just a verbose way of saying "$1" (unless you actually need to isolate the "1" from any immediately-adjacent text, like "${1}0").
2. you don't need a bash wrapper for a purely sed script. sed is a script interpreter and can be used in a #! line just like bash (or awk or perl or python etc) can. For example:
#!/bin/sed -Ef
#p; # uncomment to print both original URL an
Address bar (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity is not secure.
Re:Address bar (Score:4, Insightful)
Security through obscurity is not secure.
This has nothing to do with security through obscurity. This is about making a weak security signal stronger.
I disagree. If I can't see the full URL I can't tell that someone injected their own payload into the web server and I am actually navigating www.google.com/insecureportalthatiscontrolledbyahacker/ and I think I am just on google search. Same problem if it hides subdomains as well. wehacked.google.com and google.com are not the same site. You are literally making the experience less secure by hiding information that could be useful to the end user.
It is true that it may not be possible for the end user to know what the appropriate URL format is. In fact, that may often be the case for most end users. However, it would likely be trivial for the developer to see that they are being redirected to the wrong URL on their own website and then detect that something has been tampered with.
Re:Address bar (Score:5, Informative)
>"Its security benefits are just too large to ignore."
No it isn't. Firefox already does it right- it HIGHLIGHTS/BOLDS the domain name while leaving the rest of the URL. You get the best of both situations in one.
Google want users to need them (Score:2)
What is probable, and this is my opinion, is that Google will tak
Is Tab Group Collapse working yet? (Score:2)
Still not in 84, so this is like 4 versions with Tab Groups but no collapse function, which is 80% of the reason for the Tab Group feature.
We need an independent browser foundation now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
I'll stick with browsers that show actual URLs....
Just stop it already (Score:2)
Just stop this bullshit already. We don't need the URL hidden from us. Stop treating us like babies.
How 'bout you fuckers spend some time fixing the outstanding bugs in your code before you do any more polishing of that turd you call Chrome?
Get the URL back (Score:3)
You can actually get the full URL display back, but it requires a little delving into the Chrome flags.
See the article "How to Always Show Full URLs in Google Chrome [howtogeek.com]".
I would rather they focus on highlighting parts of the URL than hiding it, but that's clearly not the route the went with. Would be curious if there are any Chrome forks, that try to address some of Google's "great" user interface notions.
That's why I avoid Google. (Score:2)
Hoping for the return of the non-commercial web (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hoping for the return of the non-commercial web (Score:5, Interesting)
"the countryside was littered with billboards until people finally cried 'Enough!' " Historical trivia: Lady Bird Johnson (president Johnson's wife) helped push this through. But it seems to have been enacted differently in different states (despite being a federal mandate)--I see lots more billboards along federal highways in some states than in others. Mind-numbing detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
I do miss the Burma Shave signs, though.
The Internet always was a (Score:2)
But now I am thinking more and more that the deep and dark might be for me.
So time to check out/setup a
Fucking stupid, and fuck Google/Chrome (Score:2)
Eat shit and die, Google. I want ALL THE INFORMATION not just what YOU think I need.
We are out of ideas (Score:2)
Re:We are out of ideas (Score:4, Informative)
Actually they're full of ideas. Very few of them are for your good.
Can we at least get back the status bar? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I'm weird, but I really want to know where I'm going before I get there.
We should be asking why... (Score:3)
We really should be asking, Why does Google want to get rid of the address bar?
I don't think "long URLs are scary" is the reason at all.
They have been grabbing content and showing it within their domain. With a full address bar, you can tell that you are looking at their content vs perhaps a source you trust more.
Plus, just like companies can pay to move to top of search, they could also pay to transfer you to a different site than the one you were looking for, plus you'll be none the wiser since the address is hidden.
Google has an agenda with hiding the address bar. Let's be clear about that. And the pushback they've received in the past is because the rest of us do not want to be part of that agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Google want to get rid of the address bar?
Good question. Because when they implement DoH, they can resolve that URL any way they want.
Citizen! What are you doing clicking on that low ranked link? You must have made a mistake. We will direct you to our partner site, which is where you must have wanted to go in the first place.
I Would not Mind if it Saves Space (Score:2)
Next step... (Score:2)
Scammers rejoice! (Score:2)
Time to break from Google (Score:3)
During the past couple days, the search site has been broken. Double quotes don't work anymore, and other people I've spoken to have been noticing the same thing.
I've switched to Duckduckgo, because Google search has become a shitshow, and I need to get work done. I don't have time to play Google's games.
All this time, I thought M$ would fall before Google, but now it seems Google is trying to kill itself as fast as possible. :\
If they want to survive, they need to drop the whole "machine learning" and different results for different devices schtick, and go back to what they were a few years ago.
I've already switched to Firefox on my laptop, and I see no reason to ever switch back to Chrome.
There appears to be no good choice left anymore (Score:3)
- So does Edge.
- Opera is owned by the Chinese and getting increasingly stuffed with commercial features and tracking.
- Safari is a usability joke and platform-specific.
- Internet Explorer... Let's skip this one over in silence, shall we?
-
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1) I'm not sure what that would have to do with what is being discussed here
2) That doesn't seem to be true, at least with the current version of Chrome. I opened developer tools, typed example.com, and the only connection it made was to example.com. Never connected to google.
Re: (Score:2)
If they've clicked on the link in the email client (which probably also does its best to hide the address), what are the odds they're going worry about whether the "URL" in the browser says paypal.com vs payqal.com? It will still show the padlock that means it's safe, so they are good to go and enter that sweet, sweet login info.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't show the padlock anymore - specifically because it gives a false sense of security. Only a "not secure" warning on http web sites in the same spot.
Re:That's fine? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're quite wrong. Consider *WHY* Google is doing this. It isn't to help you. It's to make you forget what you're doing; to focus on the content and not who you're talking to. They want you to stay on Google content so they have complete control over what they advertise you.
This is why they invented AMP.
This is why they hide that you're viewing AMP when using Chrome for Android.
This is why they want the URL killed.
This is why they don't even want to show you the full domain name, just the company name that produced the content. (And, effectively, the company name that is paying Google to host their content on AMP.)
Yes, it's an evil thing. Google's original motto "Don't be evil" is considered quaint and inapplicable now. Every decision Google has made in the past 20 years boils down to "Let's be evil, if it'll make us money."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're quite wrong. Consider *WHY* Google is doing this. It isn't to help you. It's to make you forget what you're doing; to focus on the content and not who you're talking to. They want you to stay on Google content so they have complete control over what they advertise you.
This is why they invented AMP. This is why they hide that you're viewing AMP when using Chrome for Android. This is why they want the URL killed. This is why they don't even want to show you the full domain name, just the company name that produced the content. (And, effectively, the company name that is paying Google to host their content on AMP.)
It's actually to reduce phishing, and because URLs are mostly meaningless noise to the vast majority of users. I personally know many of the engineers behind this effort and they really don't care about any of the things you're talking about. Their focus is user experience and security for the billion or so people who use Chrome, approximately none of which understand URLs. Figuring out how to generate revenue is someone else's job (that is actually how most Google engineers not working on ads think -- like
Re: That's fine? (Score:3)
"Good. When you're down from your elitist high horse then I'll welcome you to a world where computers are no longer the domain of the hyper intelligent nerd. Stop trying to force your complexities on others. It leads to really REALLY shit interface design"
Damn, how did grandma manage to surf the web all of these years with that big URL bar befuddling her?
No, a shit interface design is hiding things like the full URL, and burying the means to enable it's view in some giant obscure menu wall that most users w