

Chrome 17 preloads autocompleted URLs as you type - rvkennedy
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/chrome-17-released-will-preload-autocompleted-urls-as-you-type.ars

======
olalonde
I wonder if Google Analytics will count those preloads as page views / unique
visits. Anyone has an idea? Edit: Since GA works mostly with Javascript, I
assume it won't have any significant effect.

~~~
stingraycharles
I believe this is the "Chrome Instant" feature as discussed here:
[http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/webmasters-
faq.html#...](http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/webmasters-
faq.html#instant)

You can use the "X-Purpose: instant" HTTP header to detect these requests. If
you're really paranoid, you can return those requests with "403 Forbidden"
responses, or your analytics company will have to take these headers into
account.

------
rvkennedy
Some serious bandwidth usage if you're on a mobile connection - Windows 8 will
be able to detect this, I'm not sure if Linux or OSX can do it in a nice way.
In the meantime you can disable it here:
[http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-
GB&...](http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-
GB&answer=1385029)

------
bwarp
There goes my 3G bandwidth without even asking...

Not a good feature if you ask me.

~~~
nextparadigms
I haven't checked Chrome 17 yet, but they've had this feature for a while in
chrome://flags/ and you can probably still turn it off.

On Chrome for Android they use this feature, too, but it's on default for "Wi-
Fi only". I guess they could make a similar setting for laptops that use 3G
connections, too.

~~~
caw
I have 17-beta, but here's the flag:

"Prerender from omnibox

Enables prerendering of suggestions from the Omnibox and predicts appropriate
network actions (prerendering, Instant, DNS preconnect) by calculating a
confidence value for each Omnibox result."

Your options are Automatic, Enabled, Disabled. Default was Automatic.

------
barrkel
I don't particularly want to inform Google of all files I download.

~~~
mistercow
Then go to the preferences and uncheck "Enable phishing and malware
protection".

~~~
duskwuff
That's primarily based on a client-side database (a Bloom filter, to be
exact). It only checks in with Google if the URL appears to be in the filter,
which most aren't.

------
itmag
What if it preloads illegal content and you get busted for it?

~~~
vasco
>The preloading will occur in cases when the top match generated by the
omnibox's autocompletion functionality is a site that the user visits
frequently.

------
Drakim
This always seemed like the next logical step for me, and I'm surprised it
wasn't implemented in various browsers earlier on.

~~~
gcp
Going off and fetching stuff that the user hasn't explicitly requested yet is
icky.

For example, you connect your laptop onto your employers network, and want to
look up several things about face detection. You start typing "face" and each
time Chrome goes off and fetches your Facebook page. You get fired for
repeatedly visiting Facebook at work. Thanks, Chrome!

~~~
Drakim
I can see your argument, but I'm having a hard time grasping the "Thanks,
Chome!" comment as if they were the ones who fired you. Obviously if your
workplace fires you for this they are in error for using inaccurate data.

~~~
gcp
What "inaccurate data"? You visited Facebook repeatedly, there's no arguing
against that. You might not have wished to, but who's fault is that?

~~~
jonknee
You didn't visit Facebook repeatedly and if you get fired for that you have an
_excellent_ legal case.

You're loading things from Facebook on a very high percentage of websites, so
if you were really going to get fired for HTTP requests to Facebook, it would
have already happened a long time ago.

~~~
mc32
Not necessarily. If it's a portable device, they may be able to take it home
(practically the default, if you're issued a laptop). Employer at that point
(in the home) cannot prevent you from visiting any such site as you're doing
it on your time. I suppose they could have a clause preventing you from
visiting FB (or any other site) at any time from a work-provided device, but
that's unlikely.

------
darkswoop
That could be a nice income boost for google, right? Keyword: "impression
based adsense advertisements"?

~~~
jonknee
Considering Google does a majority of CPC advertising and already makes a page
visibility API... No.

[http://code.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/pagevisibility.htm...](http://code.google.com/chrome/whitepapers/pagevisibility.html)

------
alexchamberlain
A lot of people have a problem with this as you are downloading something you
haven't explicitly asked for. Would it be more appropriate if Chrome opened
the TCP connection as you typed thus decreasing latency, but without actually
downloading content?

------
ChrisMorrisCo
Does Google add protection against harmful websites? What if I typo a URL and
it starts pre-loading a malware-filled website? Just curious.

A cool feature, but I think this should be opt-in.

~~~
joshuahedlund
From the second paragraph: "The preloading will occur in cases when the top
match generated by the omnibox's autocompletion functionality is _a site that
the user visits frequently_ "

Since you probably don't "frequently" visit malware-filled websites, this
shouldn't be an issue - although I wonder if Chrome would load it anyway or
not.. It seems to do a better job than most browsers of pre-emptively warning
you when you try to visit a dangerous website, at least in my experience.

~~~
ChrisMorrisCo
Thanks! I must have missed that the first time I read, I read the same
information via the Chrome support page.

------
niyazpk
What will happen to my server logs?

------
michaelkscott
Is there a way to opt-out of this feature? Or are there any hacks to do it
manually?

------
mmuro
Just another way for Google to capture information about you (options be
damned - if it's on by default, it's going to stay that way for the majority).

Plus, this seems like a cheap way to look like your browser is faster.

------
blakefarabi
Thats going to be a problem for advertising networks I bet.

------
guynamedloren
HN users complaining about bandwidth usage? Seriously? It's 2012. I'm all for
a better user experience, and this is exactly what Google is delivering. Quit
crying.

~~~
bwarp
Bandwidth costs a fortune on mobile devices in most countries around the
world.

It's a legitimate whinge.

~~~
jonknee
And Chrome 17 isn't available on mobile devices. A similar feature is on
Chrome for Android, but is on by default only if the user is connected through
WiFi.

~~~
darklajid
Let me introduce you to a world of people with laptops (bigger screen, easier
to type on, supports actual work) tethered to their phones.

~~~
jonknee
Let me introduce you to "settings". You can disable the omnibox, prediction,
instant, etc.

~~~
darklajid
Which would be fine, if the default is 'off'. It isn't, as far as I
understand.

It seems you like that feature. I respect that, just like I totally understand
that for some users 'instant search' on Google is a good feature. For me this
is a misfeature though and, given the potential network abuse, shouldn't be on
by default.

Ignore the mobile network: Every hotel I've been to in Europe and Israel had
very crappy wifi quality. I'm pretty sure that I'll hate sitting in a lobby
with or on the same floor as Chrome users with that setting turned on
(granted: Depends on usage patterns and how frequent this feature would jump
into life). On those connections I can easily throttle myself to death by
opening three tabs.

Please don't go for the low-hanging 'fix the network' here. I cannot. And
that's a real world scenario that will become worse by a setting that defaults
to true although it might very well create problems for the user _and others
around him_.

~~~
jonknee
One person on the network watching YouTube/NetFlix or streaming music is going
to use tons more bandwidth than Chrome predicting where you'll go. Same for
everyone with mail clients that automatically check every X minutes.

Also, I'd imagine Chrome is right a good portion of the time which is no extra
bandwidth at all, just faster. It's also pages you frequently visit, which
means the cache will almost always be used (visiting Google uses a whopping
1.5KB). Furthermore, Chrome automatically updates itself, which is also going
to use a lot of bandwidth. Everyone here seems to love the auto updates...

If you have bandwidth trouble, it's not unreasonable to flip a few switches.
For everyone else, the better experience is probably worthwhile.

~~~
bwarp
That's fine until you hit C|Net or some other shite filled web site which is
2.8Mb to hit the front page.

That's 1097 preloads and the base 3G rate (3Gb) in the UK is used up. 1Mb
after that costs about $1.50 so each subsequent preload of CNET would cost you
$4.20. Does that sound fair? 3G monthly bills will hit the thousand dollar
mark with little effort.

On a standard ADSL plan in the UK (5Gb), that is 1828 preloads and the data
allowance is used up. After that, rate limiting kicks in which makes
everything bar browsing light weight web sites unusable.

That's not many.

It's totally offensive usage of my connection and if it's turned on by
default, people are going to get screwed badly.

The better experience point is a load of shit - it's a workaround for crap
sites which don't load in a reasonable amount of time the first time.

It's not the browser's job to make "intelligent" decisions for me.

