How to block the DiggBar

http://daringfireball.net/2009/04/how_to_block_the_diggbar

by fromedome • 17 years ago

136 44 17 years ago

mikeyur• 17 years ago

For some reason I like this method better than frame-busting. To make it useful you could add a link to your homepage on there.

dablya2• 17 years ago

There is a direct link to the page in the digg bar itself and when clicked, the "fuck you" message remains (the digg bar disapears). Does the referrer change depending on which frame the request comes from?

throw_away• 17 years ago

the link is in the context of the digg domain, so if you click it, even though the bar is no longer present, the referrer (or should I say referer) will still be digg.com. interestingly, if you ctrl-r, the same HTTP_REFERER header will be sent. but ctrl-l, cr will blank the header & you'll get the regularly scheduled content.

tomsaffell• 17 years ago

I see his point, but I'm not sure that "go fuck yourself" is the most effective way of making it. http://digg.com/d1oNOZ

erlanger10• 17 years ago

It is a daring way of making it.

sho3• 17 years ago

I don't know, "go fuck yourself" sounds pretty unambiguous to me. What is there to explain? Digg knows exactly what they're doing, and that's exactly the reaction they deserve, IMO.

erlanger10• 17 years ago

There is something to be said for manners though.

tptacek• 17 years ago

Doesn't Facebook do pretty much the exact same thing?

timdorr2• 17 years ago

As does HootSuite: http://hootsuite.com/

Personally, I don't get why Gruber is so upset. There is an option to always hide the DiggBar. Hover over the X on the right and click the down arrow. Then there's a link that sets a cookie so you never see it again.

To me, he just sounds like a grumpy old man. The thing is useful, simple, and non-intrusive if you don't want to see it. No need to get profane about it...

erlanger10• 17 years ago

It goes against the grain of the web, that's why. Sites that connect so many users to so much content should not do that.

dave_au• 17 years ago

He's not worried about it on the client side. He's worried about it from the server side. As was really, really clear from reading the article.

Might shed some light on the downmods.

sho3• 17 years ago

Although your comment is all kinds of wrong, it's the bit about being "profane" which really gets my goat.

I mean, seriously. It is 2009. We are all adults. Are you honestly telling me you are offended, even in the slightest, by hearing the word "fuck"? If so - you got problems.

Swear words are part of the language. Whether one uses them or not depends on the circumstance - inopportune or over-use gets you marked down as lacking class or civility, warranted use is justified and commendable. This is the latter IMO. I personally applaud Gruber telling Digg to "go fuck yourself". That's exactly what I thought, too, and they deserve nothing better.

By trying to label and dismiss his justifiable reaction as "profane", though, you sound not only self-righteous, but as if you are attempting to discredit his argument using moral labels - like someone who is "profane" doesn't merit hearing out. Well, if that's what you think, you can go fuck yourself, too.

jonknee• 17 years ago

They're not being advertised as a URL shortener though.

erlanger10• 17 years ago

Assuming he uses Apache, why not just use a RewriteCond for that referrer and redirect to such a page? Executing that regex on every page is a performance hit, and generally I prefer to use Apache for stuff like this.

If you do use the supplied PHP code on your website, I recommend using strpos() or strstr() instead of preg_match().

tjogin• 17 years ago

Maybe he knows what kind of performance margins he has.

erlanger10• 17 years ago

What do you mean by that? At the very least, most PHP devs know that strpos/strstr are much, much faster than a regular expression.

narag• 17 years ago

Didn't Apache use regular expresions for mod_rewrite?

erlanger10• 17 years ago

Yes, but I've never heard of RewriteConds/Rules affecting scalability. It's common knowledge to only use preg_match, etc. in PHP if you're performing a very complex search. Of course, this is not a huge deal, but I feel that if you're advising others to use such a simple piece of code, it should be as perfect as possible.

TwoBit• 17 years ago

Or you can just use the DiggBar disable feature that it provides.

dablya2• 17 years ago

"No, wait...." moment in 3..2..1

reconbot• 17 years ago

I'll explain, The problem is you seeing the links its that google will index the digg links to your site, people will pass around the digg links to your site. You'll see the digg link for every link you click on too.

fuzzmeister• 17 years ago

While I concede that the majority of Digg users are either unintelligent or insane, there are still a good portion of relatively reasonable people like myself who enjoy the service. Personally, I don't believe I'm the type of reader Gruber should be telling to "fuck himself", but that's exactly what he's doing. A far more reasonable approach would be to simply redirect to an unframed version of the page. Otherwise, why not just display this lovely page to any traffic with "digg.com" as the referrer?

ojbyrne2• 17 years ago

Suddenly, without warning, digg has transformed themselves into IE6. The vast unwashed majority that you really don't want to have to deal with, but are forced to.

Hoff• 17 years ago

The parallel with IE6 goes further than you might have expected. The Digg folks have managed to screw up the page rendering in at least one non-IE browser.

andreyf• 17 years ago

A far more reasonable approach...

Albeit, not nearly as funny :) I suppose I should be growing out of that kind of humor, thought...

mechanical_fish• 17 years ago

I don't believe I'm the type of reader Gruber should be telling to "fuck himself"

Then tell Digg to disable their stupid bar. Tell them again and again.

That's obviously the idea. The difference between the Diggbar and IE6 is that Digg can solve the problem whenever they want. They can even selectively solve the problem for certain sites, though such behavior would not be very nice.

miles2• 17 years ago

  <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
  <!--
  function breakout_of_frame()
  {
    if (top.location != location) {
      top.location.href = document.location.href ;
    }
  }
  -->
  </script>
  ...
  <body onload="breakout_of_frame()">

====================

The above is from: http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/framebreak.shtml

Another, shorter example: http://www.irt.org/script/473.htm

Actually, now that I've RTFA, it looks like the one DF linked to originally is swell, and doesn't require using onload:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller

erlanger10• 17 years ago

Psst...indent your comment two spaces to display as code.

miles2• 17 years ago

Thanks, erlanger!

marbletiles2• 17 years ago

It's a pity that Digg also made a grab for the URLs at the same time as they did the framing. Framing, despite all its 1996 squick factor, can be very handy: I've often wished HN had a bar similar to Reddit's, and the Google Images frame is good, too.

I don't think Gruber goes nearly far enough in explaining his objections, however: he barely bothers beyond an "of course" and appeal to consensus. He does mention that URLs are important, and assumes that people will agree. But if you don't automatically agree, that's not going to carry the argument: after all, the full URL is in the DiggBar, and can be C&Pd by anyone savvy enough to care.

Of course, the real problem is with unsavvy users who are going to start passing around URLs that flow via Digg, a blatant landgrab on their part, but he doesn't really explain this. By talking in passing about fights that we had in 1996 he's talking about ancient history to Digg's audience, and they're simply going to assume he's a cantankerous old grump, rather than realising why Digg's actions should be condemned.

The "fuck you" page doesn't help this cause either: he could have used it to explain why the seemingly-useful bar's actually a bad idea. Instead, he's just going to piss off the hordes. A wasted opportunity, I think.

windsurfer• 17 years ago

I think I prefer the web 1.0 way of "manage it yourself" (tabs) as oppose to the web 2.0 way of "we'll do everything we think you want" (the digg bar).

GHFigs• 17 years ago

You appear to have mistaken the author for someone who cares about Digg's audience. Gruber doesn't care about Digg's audience ("mindless, borderline illiterates"), and he has little incentive to educate them on why Digg's new shit salad has so much shit in it.

marbletiles2• 17 years ago

I understood that, but he's got an audience that he presumably does care about, and he could have both snarked at Diggers and educated the people who don't understand the fuss at the same time.

(Also, if he actually wants Digg to stop this, the best possible way is to point out to Diggers why the salad they're getting is full of shit so they can have one of their classic revolts)

joshu• 17 years ago

for sites where there's commentary, i do often wish there was a side-by-side view of the site and the commentary on the site.

Fuca• 17 years ago

I want to bookmark those pages as their are, not as digg pages. I do not know but I think this is going to backfire on Digg in the long run.

How to block the DiggBar

Related Stories