Dungeon Master Forum

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,3902 ... 410,00.htm

I think this is rather silly of Google. Here's my view on it.

In Firefox, prefetch is on by default. It should be off by default. These things should always be opt in, not opt out.

The average user won't even know that prefetch is happening and won't think to read a FAQ to find out about something like that.

So Google are utilising prefetch on the search results? Let's say the first result returned is a site with hundreds of pornographic images on it, and the browser starts caching that without the user knowing. Say also that they are on dial up. Now let's say that the user clicks the fifth result in the search listing. The broswer has just downloaded a whole bunch of rubbish the user didn't want and it's clogged up their machine and maybe also eaten into a monthly transfer allocation.

Why should the user have to suffer degraded pc and net performance for something that they haven't chosen?

I think that prefetching is wonderful idea when implemented properly on a site I have already opted to view. But not in a search page -- that's just dumb. At the very least, there should be a way of blocking certain sites from utilising prefetch, but allowing others.

I generally have applauded Google's innovations over the years but this one sucks big fat ass.

Nowadays everyone has P4's or AmdXp's 2k+ and broadband... all except me... *sobs incontrolably*

This is lunacy. Just when onlinesecurity was taking a step in the right direction, the world's most popular search engine compromises it.

I think it's a good idea. But I defiently agree that it ought to be opt-in instead of opt-out.

For me it's beneficial in general, I got 8Mbit downband, unlimited transfer and keep 1GB webcache so I won't be glogged at any stage.

What ??? i want it tooooooooo *hates Toni Y for life*

Interesting that it puts a prefix on the retrieved files - so no get out clause for future Gary Glitters!