Redirect upon signing out? February 5, 2010 8:35 PM   Subscribe

Pony request: When we sign out, can we please be redirected to the page that we came from, instead of to the main page? Just like actually does happen when we sign in.
posted by Flunkie to Feature Requests at 8:35 PM (162 comments total)

Is this some sly metaphor for death?
posted by longsleeves at 8:42 PM on February 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


I'm worried that because there's no intermediate step, simply redirecting back to the same page might be confusing. When you log in, you land on the page with the login form but signing out is just a link. Maybe we could add a, 'hey you're logged out' page and then redirect. I don't think the advantage of this method is obvious though.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:45 PM on February 5, 2010


Why?
posted by koeselitz at 8:51 PM on February 5, 2010

Why?
I'm not really sure I know how to answer this, other than "because when I log out I would prefer being redirected to the page I left".
posted by Flunkie at 8:53 PM on February 5, 2010


I mean, do you really find yourself browsing Metafilter, and say to yourself, "I need to see this thread while I'm signed out"? I have a feeling that most people have an overwhelmingly different experience of the site: they click "Sign Out" when they're done browsing and are about to walk away.

I just can't imagine a whole lot of people saying to themselves, "well, I'm in the middle of browsing, but I'm going to sign out and keep reading this thread." Is that really how you experience it, Flunkie?
posted by koeselitz at 8:54 PM on February 5, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm worried that because there's no intermediate step, simply redirecting back to the same page might be confusing. When you log in, you land on the page with the login form but signing out is just a link.
First, please note that this is exactly what happens when you log out while on the front page. I don't think that's confusing.

Second, if not "redirect to the page you left", at least "redirect to the main page of the subsite that you were on"? For example, if you're somewhere on Ask Metafilter, get redirected to Ask Metafilter's main page? Today (I think), you're redirected to the "main" main page, no matter what.
posted by Flunkie at 8:55 PM on February 5, 2010 [1 favorite]

I mean, do you really find yourself browsing Metafilter, and say to yourself, "I need to see this thread while I'm signed out"?
Do I find myself saying I need to? No, of course not. But, as I've already said, I find myself wishing that I were redirected to the page I left. This happens a lot.
I have a feeling that most people have an overwhelmingly different experience of the site: they click "Sign Out" when they're done browsing and are about to walk away.
I don't doubt that that's so, but then again, I don't see why those people should care one way or the other.
I just can't imagine a whole lot of people saying to themselves, "well, I'm in the middle of browsing, but I'm going to sign out and keep reading this thread." Is that really how you experience it, Flunkie?
Yes, that is really how I experience it, and I experience it that way a lot.
posted by Flunkie at 8:59 PM on February 5, 2010

Maybe we could add a, 'hey you're logged out' page and then redirect. I don't think the advantage of this method is obvious though.
Or perhaps "Hey, you're logged out, and here's a link to the page you left."
posted by Flunkie at 9:03 PM on February 5, 2010


Well, I support anything that has the awesome glow-and-fade effect like the "your message has been sent" dealie. Maybe if signing out popped you back to the page you were on with that neat effect...
posted by koeselitz at 9:10 PM on February 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't feel strongly about it at all, but it seems to me that logging out should kick you back to the homepage.
posted by dhammond at 9:16 PM on February 5, 2010 [2 favorites]

I don't feel strongly about it at all, but it seems to me that logging out should kick you back to the homepage.
To take a page from koeselitz: Why?
posted by Flunkie at 9:19 PM on February 5, 2010


I don't feel strongly about it either, but it seems to me that logging out should involve a majestic, yet ominous bass voice that seems to resonate from the walls of the room, if not the air itself, saying the words "Thou art banished from my sight, mortal!"

Actually, I've never even used the logout link. Is that what happens now?
posted by arto at 9:43 PM on February 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of logging out at all. That's just... whoa.
posted by Babblesort at 9:43 PM on February 5, 2010 [12 favorites]


Yeah, by the way, I wanted to ask that everybody try to avoid signing out if they possibly can; don't do it unless you really, really need to. When you sign out, I cease to exist until you sign back in again; and I find that's very inconvenient, particularly since I happen to have a number of things I need to get done.
posted by koeselitz at 9:53 PM on February 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


I mean, do you really find yourself browsing Metafilter, and say to yourself, "I need to see this thread while I'm signed out"?

Not exactly, but I do find myself browsing Metafilter and saying to myself, "I need to login under a different account to flame some jackholes, favorite some of my comments, and generally create the illusion that my views enjoy wider support than they actually do".
posted by planet at 10:05 PM on February 5, 2010 [12 favorites]


I'm not sure whether that was random snark or insinuating snark, but whichever it was, in case you're having a difficult time imagining a non-nefarious reason why I might want to log out while continuing to browse, I'll tell you:

I'm pretty confident that with the exception of myself and the possible exception of the Metafilter moderators, no one knows that I am a Metafilter user, let alone this specific Metafilter user. Perhaps you might think I am overly protective of my privacy, or even paranoid, but I would like to keep it this way. And, to be clear, this is the case with pretty much every internet site I use, not just Metafilter.

Because of this, my "default" usage mode of pretty much every website is to use it logged out, only logging in when necessary. Even when I'm in an environment where I'm comfortable that no one might walk up behind me and happen to see the screen, I often operate in this mode just out of habit.

On Metafilter, this basically means logging in to post. I will often log in and out several times while reading the exact same thread (and yes, using the same account each time). The current behavior of the "sign out" link makes this slightly more inconvenient than I feel it should be, hence this pony request.
posted by Flunkie at 10:29 PM on February 5, 2010


To take a page from koeselitz: Why?

Because it seems to be the norm? For instance, if I log of out my Yahoo or Gmail accounts, it takes me back to the main page for Yahoo.com or Gmail.com. It seems that most sites do something along these lines, whether it's the main page of the site or just the main login page. I could be wrong, but I can't recall any instances where I've logged out from a site and had it redirect me directly to the page I was looking at before I logged out.
posted by dhammond at 10:39 PM on February 5, 2010


Well, dhammond, off the top of my head, Reddit and Slashdot operate the way I'm requesting (and, pb, I have never been confused by them doing so). I don't think it's as much of a norm as you seem to believe.

But in any case, if the only reason is "because other sites do it", that doesn't seem terribly compelling to me.
posted by Flunkie at 10:45 PM on February 5, 2010


How about right clicking the Sign Out link and opening it in a new tab? Then you can close the tab and presto, you're back at the thread you were reading.
posted by ODiV at 10:55 PM on February 5, 2010


That's a good idea, ODiv; thanks.
posted by Flunkie at 10:56 PM on February 5, 2010


You could probably even make it a bookmark. Then you could open the bookmark in a new tab and not even lose your place in the thread.
posted by ODiV at 11:02 PM on February 5, 2010


Well, a "log out of Metafilter" bookmark implies to anyone that happens to see it that I log in to Metafilter.
posted by Flunkie at 11:04 PM on February 5, 2010


Not if you keep Firefox Portable in a TrueCrypt volume!

Why no, I'm not paranoid
posted by ODiV at 11:08 PM on February 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


Maybe a greasemonkey script? It would give you away, but then so would pressing Ctrl-H (unless you systematically clean your history), and one more script would be fairly discrete.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:08 PM on February 5, 2010


I do systematically clean my history. I even, after logging out, go to my cookie list, and delete the cookies for "login.metafilter.com".
posted by Flunkie at 11:12 PM on February 5, 2010


But in any case, if the only reason is "because other sites do it", that doesn't seem terribly compelling to me.

I'm not suggesting that we blindly follow the lead of other websites. I think the reason that many sites do not operate in the manner you describe is that your average internet user has been trained to expect some sort of "confirmation" that they've been logged out. Banking sites do this explicitly by loading a screen that tells you you've been logged out and even suggesting that you close the browser window to be "extra safe."

The other effect that redirecting to the homepage or login has is notifying the user, if only on a small level, that they have effectively "left" the site. Logging out and immediately redirecting to the same page doesn't offer the same sort of obvious messaging. I would guess that your average person who's logging out is not looking to dive back into a thread they just left.
posted by dhammond at 11:15 PM on February 5, 2010

I think the reason that many sites do not operate in the manner you describe is that your average internet user has been trained to expect some sort of "confirmation" that they've been logged out.
So what do you think is the reason that many sites do operate in the manner that I described?

Obviously banking sites and GMail aren't going to operate this way; a bank is not going to let you look at your balance after you've logged out, and GMail isn't going to let you look at your email after you've logged out. There's no reason to have the behavior I'm suggesting on such sites, as being logged in is pretty much the only way to use those sites.

The sites I named -- Slashdot and Reddit -- are much more similar to Metafilter in this respect than GMail or banking sites are.
posted by Flunkie at 11:19 PM on February 5, 2010


Flunkie: "Because of this, my "default" usage mode of pretty much every website is to use it logged out, only logging in when necessary. Even when I'm in an environment where I'm comfortable that no one might walk up behind me and happen to see the screen, I often operate in this mode just out of habit."

Well, I don't think this is typical internet user behavior. Even at a public place like a library, I stay logged in to the website I'm using until I'm done posting.

It doesn't seem like a lot of other people want this option so I am not sure pb should go to the work of implementing it. Perhaps a Greasemonkey script would be more beneficial. You could make a request for the script at userscript.org's script request forum, or maybe hit up one of the Greasemonkey coders here at Mefi.
posted by IndigoRain at 11:48 PM on February 5, 2010


I mean until I'm done using the site.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:12 AM on February 6, 2010


I stay logged in to the website I'm using until I'm done posting.

Yeah, me too. Because if someone looks over my shoulder and see the site they can't tell if I'm logged in or not, particularly if it's scrolled down enough so the top section is missing. Personally I'd assume the person is logged in given I'm a regular user myself, and if I wasn't a member I wouldn't know there was a difference anyway. So the whole logging out then in then out thing doesn't really achieve anything, and I don't think pb should be coding solutions for such aberrant behaviour.
posted by shelleycat at 12:50 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


The bottom of the page also indicates that you are logged in, and who as, and even if it were only the top, your statement that "the whole logging out then in then out thing doesn't really achieve anything" is factually untrue.

As for what pb should be doing, I think that that's for him and perhaps the other mods to decide, and although I obviously don't know what the code looks like, I'm having a hard time imagining that this would be anything but a trivial change (from the coding perspective). Finally, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to my behavior as "aberrant". Thank you.
posted by Flunkie at 1:34 AM on February 6, 2010


I strongly support this proposal. If it were not for the fact that my browser is fitted with a marvelous contrivance popularly referred to as a "Back" button, I wouldn't know where I was. As it is, I merely suffer momentary confusion as to who I am; and that is easily dispelled by clicking the button labeled "Preview".
posted by flabdablet's sock puppet at 1:57 AM on February 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


Pay no attention to him. He's aberrant.
posted by flabdablet at 1:59 AM on February 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


and although I obviously don't know what the code looks like, I'm having a hard time imagining that this would be anything but a trivial change (from the coding perspective).

Your examples of reddit and slashdot both have AJAX-heavy user interfaces. This means that it's really easy for them to change state (such as logging in and out) without you actually navigating away from the webpage you're looking at.

Metafilter is a little more oldschool, though. So you have to actually post your logout request. It's probably doable, but it's not as easily doable as the AJAX-heavy sites.

Personally, I find the idea unappetizing because logging out should remove as much personal information as possible from the display. One huge piece of personal information is what I'm looking at. The homepage of metafilter is pretty easy to explain to somebody looking over your shoulder, "Yeah, it's this community weblog thing I read." It's radically less easy to explain why I'm reading an AskMe about foul-smelling vaginal discharges.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to my behavior as "aberrant".

Well, your behavior is aberrant. It is substantially different from what most mefites do. Nobody said it was abhorrent or abominable.

[The preceding paragraph brought to you by the Council for the Reclamation of Qualitative and Quantitative Terminology.]
posted by Netzapper at 2:05 AM on February 6, 2010 [8 favorites]


Other people who may or may not be aberrant might enjoy being able to log out of pretty much anywhere in one click. I know I do.
posted by flabdablet at 2:07 AM on February 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


And it works even better if you insert location.reload(true); right before the last curly bracket.
posted by flabdablet at 2:14 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


Netzapper, why *are* you reading an AskMe about foul-smelling vaginal discharges?
posted by flabdablet at 2:34 AM on February 6, 2010


while i like that it takes you to the main page, i can get behind the suggestion that when you log out it takes you to the home page of the subsection you were on.
posted by nadawi at 2:43 AM on February 6, 2010


So, once again, we consider fixing something that isn't broken. I must admit, though, that more people that I expected seem to log out regularly. I thought most people just stayed logged in all over the place, like I do.
posted by dg at 4:05 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I boil my computer twice while reading any thread.
posted by Mid at 5:22 AM on February 6, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm hoping that pb can fashion a larger lobster pot for me.
posted by Mid at 5:31 AM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


If you're on a shared computer, and you've been looking at an Ask Mefi on, say, genital warts, you might prefer it to default back to the homepage.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:50 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


Following ODiV's suggestion, how about a ctrl-click on the logout link (for a new tab) quickly followed by F8 to refresh the page you are on, which would then reflect your logged out status, THEN click the center button (if you have one) on the new tab to close it. I think that'd be cmnd-click and cmnd-r on a Mac.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:50 AM on February 6, 2010


Crap. I meant to add that, your pony adds to the ease of ability to remain anonymous to your edge-case user experience, but seems to remove a smidge of anonymity from anyone else. When you log out you leave a final clue as to what you were doing, what you were looking at? Weird.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:53 AM on February 6, 2010


Seriously. That bookmarklet I linked, with location.reload(true); wedged in at the end, does exactly what's requested, in one click. Stick it on your bookmarks toolbar and you get an instant, one-click, location preserving logout on any site that does login with cookies, and as far as I know that's most of them.
posted by flabdablet at 6:53 AM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


Flunkie's suggestion would make it easier to switch to a sockpuppet (like my one who'll post the next comment in thi thread) so maybe that's a reason not to do it.
posted by Rumple at 7:55 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I will often log in and out several times while reading the exact same thread
I'm impressed by your dedication to avoiding shoulder-surfers discovering you have a Metafilter account. Several times? That would drive me nuts.
posted by bonaldi at 8:27 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


Well, it would make it easier to move in and out of one's many sockpuppets in a jif while avoiding undue confusion.
posted by nevercalm at 8:33 AM on February 6, 2010


Ah, crap. Left this thread open, made pea soup, came back, commented, and Rumple beat me to the punch.
posted by nevercalm at 8:34 AM on February 6, 2010


I never log out of anything – I have a special computer that I only use for MetaFilter and porn.

Once my wife caught me looking at it, and she was all like, "that's disgusting! Is that what you like? Is it? Is it? With that unprofessional blue background?!??!"
posted by Mister_A at 8:43 AM on February 6, 2010 [4 favorites]


Can I get a pop up window that says, "YOU ARE ABOUT TO LOG OUT. ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS? YES CANCEL," and I want CANCEL to be the default option.

I think I have been logged in on my laptop since I got it over a year ago. About the only time I ever log out is when someone complains about an ad and I want to see it.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:04 AM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


What do you mean, "sign out"? Just use a different browser (IE, Chrome, etc.) to log in as your sock puppet.
posted by Eideteker at 9:11 AM on February 6, 2010

and although I obviously don't know what the code looks like, I'm having a hard time imagining that this would be anything but a trivial change (from the coding perspective).
Your examples of reddit and slashdot both have AJAX-heavy user interfaces. This means that it's really easy for them to change state (such as logging in and out) without you actually navigating away from the webpage you're looking at.

Metafilter is a little more oldschool, though. So you have to actually post your logout request. It's probably doable, but it's not as easily doable as the AJAX-heavy sites.
I was not saying "it should be easy because Reddit can do it"; I am saying that it should be easy because, well, it should be easy. I am saying this as someone who has done the coding that it would take to accomplish this, in the "old school" way, and who also has noted that Metafilter already supports equivalent functionality in another situation (logging in), and that Metafilter did so upon user request, seemingly in an off-hand way.

It simply is not remotely difficult to do, generally speaking, and if it is difficult to do for Metafilter specifically, then that's indicative that the Metafilter codebase is an epic mess.

I'm not trying to cast an aspersion such as "if this change is not made, then the Metafilter codebase is an epic mess". I'm just saying that I am very confident that, generally speaking, this is an essentially trivial change (speaking strictly from the point of view of the coding changes that would be required).
Finally, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to my behavior as "aberrant".
Well, your behavior is aberrant. It is substantially different from what most mefites do. Nobody said it was abhorrent or abominable.
I am aware of the definitions of "aberrant". I am also aware that it carries a negative connotation.

Even the definitions that you link to back this up. The definition there for its use as an adjective (which is the way it was used here) says that it is "markedly different from an accepted norm", not merely "markedly different from a norm", and lists "deviant" as a synonym.

Merriam-Webster, for example, says not merely that it is "straying from the normal way", it is "straying from the right or normal way"; not merely that it is "deviating from the usual type", but "deviating from the usual or natural type".

OED includes similar definitions ("... or natural", for example), plus "diverging or deviating from any moral standard" and "abnormal".

I am, again, aware that strictly speaking "aberrant" can be used to strictly and only mean "not the norm", and I'm not trying to imply that the original usage in this thread wasn't intended to convey this. But "deviant" and "abnormal" can also be used to strictly and only mean "not the norm"; none of this changes the fact that all three words generally carry a negative connotation.
I strongly support this proposal. If it were not for the fact that my browser is fitted with a marvelous contrivance popularly referred to as a "Back" button, I wouldn't know where I was. As it is, I merely suffer momentary confusion as to who I am; and that is easily dispelled by clicking the button labeled "Preview".
I apologize that I have apparently fooled certain people into thinking that I am incapable of coping with the current behavior of the "sign out" button.
posted by Flunkie at 9:37 AM on February 6, 2010


I regularly leave my account logged in on strange computers in the hopes that one of them will make valuable contributions to the site.
posted by graventy at 9:53 AM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


What do you mean, "sign out"? Just use a different browser (IE, Chrome, etc.) to log in as your sock puppet.

Do you really think that's easier than signing out? What if you strongly prefer the browser you're using, or you only have one browser? Also, someone using a sock puppet will often want to make absolutely sure that they're not posting under the usual username, so it could make them nervous to have both accounts logged in at once (it'd be easy to accidently post with the wrong username).
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:57 AM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie, in the opposite situation, (logging in), there's actually a practical reason to not redirect to the front page: A person is reading, not logged in, wants to respond to something, and must log in to do so.

I think it's just not at all clear why anyone would ever need to sign out in mid-read, let alone be automagically transported back to the page you're on.

Now, all that said, I actually agree with you, if only in terms of aesthetic consistency.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:08 AM on February 6, 2010


MOAR JOKES PLS.

Seriously, there's like eleventy-six inches of snow, I need some entertainment.
posted by Mister_A at 10:14 AM on February 6, 2010


I'm struggling to see how "What Slashdot and Reddit do" is evidence of a general usability trend as opposed to two cherry-picked examples from sites whose users are much more tech-savvy than average.
posted by yerfatma at 10:22 AM on February 6, 2010


I normally log out of Metafilter and go and peruse the gaping void that is goatse.cx.

Would it be possible to save me a mouse-click and redirect everybody there when they log out please?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:26 AM on February 6, 2010

I think it's just not at all clear why anyone would ever need to sign out in mid-read, let alone be automagically transported back to the page you're on.
No one needs to, as I've already said. No one needs to do so in the "logging in" situation, either, but you seem to be in favor of it in that situation.

As for why someone would want to, I can only describe why I personally want to. I have done this here.

I understand that most people don't use the site the way that I do, but please take my word that I do use the site the way that I claim to, and that the functionality that I'm requesting would improve the site for me, albeit in a small way; it would improve it in the same way that the equivalent functionality on the login side improved it for most people. And again, this was something that Metafilter added, upon user request, seemingly in an offhand way.

What I guess I don't understand is why there are so many people who this requested change wouldn't affect at all -- e.g. those who claim not to even comprehend the idea of signing out -- who nonetheless feel the need to argue against it (including some who argue against it in snarkily dismissive ways). Certainly if it were a change that would require a lot of work, I could see such people arguing against it, but it's simply not, at least assuming that the Metafilter codebase is not an epic mess.
posted by Flunkie at 10:29 AM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie is making a perfectly reasonable request, far more reasonable than many of the ponies I see asked for around these parts. The mods may or may not decide to grant it, but I don't really understand the hostility that's simmering in many of these comments. Yeah, "aberrant" really isn't a neutral term, and it's uncalled for. Probably not many people have a need for this; so what?

Having said that, I don't remember the last time I logged out.
posted by languagehat at 10:32 AM on February 6, 2010

I'm struggling to see how "What Slashdot and Reddit do" is evidence of a general usability trend as opposed to two cherry-picked examples from sites whose users are much more tech-savvy than average.
I brought those sites up as quick, off the top of my head, counterexamples to a person who said that this change shouldn't be made because Metafilter's current behavior "seems to be the norm", and that "most sites" behave the way that Metafilter does with respect to this.

That person brought up Gmail and web banking sites as examples to back the claim that Metafilter's behavior is "the norm".

I don't see why it's irrelevant to give counterexamples, especially when those counterexamples are much more relevant than the original examples of that person: Again, Gmail and web banking are not comparable to Metafilter in this situation, because there is essentially no way to use those sites without being logged in. Of course this functionality isn't going to be present on Gmail or a banking site; why would they let you see your email, or your account balance, after you have logged out?

And, again, Slashdot and Reddit were just two examples off the top of my head. I am certain that I could think of many more, although I'm not going to.
posted by Flunkie at 10:35 AM on February 6, 2010


I never log out. All of my stupidest comments have been made by my mischievous roommate.

(And, yeah, I don't see what was so objectionable about Flunkie's request.)
posted by Dumsnill at 10:37 AM on February 6, 2010


I think it's just not at all clear why anyone would ever need to sign out in mid-read, let alone be automagically transported back to the page you're on.

To switch to a different account. BTW, this isn't necessarily a sock puppet - it could be a different person, also a Mefite, who uses the same computer.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:44 AM on February 6, 2010


No one needs to do so in the "logging in" situation, either

Uh, well, actually, in order to comment or post, yeah, one *needs* to log in, and being directed back to the page on which one would like to contribute provides a practical convenience.

You don't need to log out to continue reading a thread. Doing so would only serve to introduce the apparently huge hassle of being redirected to the front page and having to click your browser's Back button a couple of times. If that's really how you use the site, well, maybe you could just change how you use the site?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:47 AM on February 6, 2010


Sounds to me like this is an aberrant method for surfing the web, and maybe you just need to find a different way of doing it? Like open the thread in a new tab, log out there, then reload your current one?

When I read Metafilter while standing on my head, can you make it so that the text flips over too? I heard slashdot and reddit are implementing it as I write this.....
posted by nevercalm at 10:51 AM on February 6, 2010


Sys Rq, please. I was not saying that no one needs to log in in order to post. I was saying that no one needs to be automatically redirected to the page that they left, upon logging in, in order to post. Was this honestly not clear?
posted by Flunkie at 10:54 AM on February 6, 2010


Yeah, it was.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:56 AM on February 6, 2010


It was honestly not clear that I was not claiming that logging in is not a prerequisite for posting?
posted by Flunkie at 10:57 AM on February 6, 2010


It's not an unreasonable request, but I don't sign out as frequently as Flunkie.

Perhaps figure out a way of obscuring the fact that you're logged in (via a greasemonkey script?) and have a link to toggle the visibility of comment boxes/other stuff to make it appear as though you're logged out. Also: if we want to complete the illusion then the script has to stick a few ads on the page.

How hard is it to write a greasemonkey script anyway?
posted by hellojed at 11:11 AM on February 6, 2010


I'm just still amazed at the "logging out" part, at home I just stay logged in.

If I'm on a public computer, I log out when I'm finished with Metafilter entirely, so a redirect to the main page is no hassle one way or the other. I log out, hit "clear all private data" in Firefox, close the browser and that's that.

Flunkie, if I understand you correctly, your Metafilter use is secret, and your posting doubly so, which means you log in only very briefly, post quickly before any of your family/roommates/parole officers/whatevers can be aware that you post to the site, and then log out again yes? I suppose given that having the logout button send you back to the thread you were just in makes sense, but wow that sounds like an odd situation. I can't imagine that anyone other than you uses this site in such secrecy.

If I may pry, are you using public computers, or do you have a very oppressive home situation? If public, why the log out after each post?
posted by sotonohito at 12:09 PM on February 6, 2010


Personally, I find the idea unappetizing because logging out should remove as much personal information as possible from the display. One huge piece of personal information is what I'm looking at.

This. This this this.
posted by desuetude at 12:14 PM on February 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


sotonohito, I'm just concerned with my privacy, that's all. I'm aware, as I have already said, that many people will think that I am overly concerned with it, or even perhaps that I'm paranoid about it. I don't see why this matters with respect to my request, and it's a bit unnerving that so many people seem to be fixated upon it.
posted by Flunkie at 12:21 PM on February 6, 2010


Yeah. I keep my browser logged in all the time.

Actually, if we're worried about privacy, what about an https option? I mean all our stuff, posts, memails, etc are going out unencrypted. Anyone on the same network or using a wifi sniffer can read it.
posted by delmoi at 12:21 PM on February 6, 2010


I'm aware that people can sniff the network for my transmissions, delmoi. I basically trust them in that they won't do so. You may think that this is contradictory or hypocritical or insufficiently paranoid or any number of things; if you do think something like that, that's fine with me.

Another point is that I believe that changing the site from http to https could involve significantly more work, depending upon how the server and/or code is set up, than my actual request does (which, again, I think is likely a very easy thing to accomplish).
posted by Flunkie at 12:27 PM on February 6, 2010


Uh, the reason gmail and banking sites redirect you to the homepage is because that's all you can look at after logging out. Disingenuous examples much?

For the most part, public forums that only require a login to comment will redirect you back to where you were. This isn't a technological marvel, you just send the current URL as a parameter in the logout link, and have the logout page redirect to whatever that is.

Why are people who never log out hostile to this? Bizarre.
posted by cj_ at 12:28 PM on February 6, 2010


By some strange co-incidence I had logged out for the first in forever, right before reading this thread* and it felt really odd to be directed to the main site from a subsite. I think I would have preferred to end up on the same page though I don't have any particularly strong feeling about that. But being redirected to the blue from a subsite felt a whole look like being redirected to another website altogether and not at all what I was expecting.

* I picked up my wife's computer and found out I was logged in over there -- but hey, that explains all the extra spouses.
posted by tallus at 12:28 PM on February 6, 2010


This must put the mods in a strange position. On the one hand, it's a perfectly reasonable request that makes sense to me, but on the other, I think there's some serious ethical considerations about enabling Flunkies described Internet behavior.

Maybe just do it for everyone that isn't user 46104?
posted by floam at 12:45 PM on February 6, 2010

I think there's some serious ethical considerations about enabling Flunkies described Internet behavior.
Someone please remind me again that "aberrant" is a completely non-judgmental word.
posted by Flunkie at 12:50 PM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie...I see that you want this done...but I really don't understand the reasoning. I don't think other people do here either.

Is there something you achieve by logging out and staying on that same page?

Is there something you are achieving by logging out that would not have existed had you stayed logged in?


As of right now, I see this as "I prefer this for no reason", but I believe that if you can answer one of those two questions to MeTa's satisfaction (as well as pb's), you may get exactly what you want.

So can you further elaborate to help your cause.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:02 PM on February 6, 2010


Why are people who never log out hostile to this? Bizarre.

This is far from the first time MeTa went all flaily-arm over a request made by a minority of the userbase. Granted, this time so far it appears to be a minority of just one user, which makes it kind of weird to make a code change for just one user whose method of using the site is pretty much the definition of "statistical outlier", but then again the change wouldn't affect anyone else, so.
posted by middleclasstool at 1:06 PM on February 6, 2010


hal_c_on, have you read my earlier explanation of why I hope for this change? Because it doesn't seem like you did, frankly. If you had, I could see you characterizing my request as unreasonable, but I don't see why you would characterize it as my "preferring it for no reason".
posted by Flunkie at 1:08 PM on February 6, 2010

Granted, this time so far it appears to be a minority of just one user
That's not entirely true.
posted by Flunkie at 1:10 PM on February 6, 2010


Y'know, I encountered a totally fucking modern (or perhaps postmodern) occurence today. I was surfing this site(NSFW, it was bound to happen eventually, perhaps it deserves a MeTa thread of it's own, blablabla), and I encountered pictures of a female coworker dancing buck naked on stage at a nightclub. She's attractive, but I don't like her and she don't like me. But shit, this is just too good. And yeah, I'm sure it's her, sometimes a distinctive tattoo can be a curse.

This happened to me once before, but it was a male co-worker, and he wasn't even my boss, so I couldn't blackmail him-"hey, penis boy? I don't show up to work no more but I still get paid, otherwise 8 by tens of this go on the bulletin board, OK?"

Twas not to be.
posted by jonmc at 1:11 PM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie, I hadn't seen that post. I just scanned down looking for you to explain yourself and I missed it. If you had put this reasoning on the first post, it could have prevented a lot of people from going "why?".

In any case, if you are THAT worried about your privacy you should do this:

1. Stay signed out.
2. Write your responses for several threads on textpad/notepad with the thread urls.
3. Sign in
4. Redirect to the threads you want to post.
5. Copy & paste
6. Repeat steps 4&5 till you've finished.
7. Sign out.

THAT will maintain that you are logged on to this site for as little as possible. You won't have to stay signed in while you write or think of what to write.

Would that work for you?
posted by hal_c_on at 1:16 PM on February 6, 2010


What I guess I don't understand is why there are so many people who this requested change wouldn't affect at all -- e.g. those who claim not to even comprehend the idea of signing out -- who nonetheless feel the need to argue against it (including some who argue against it in snarkily dismissive ways).

'Cause you're arguing for a change that could be abused and possibly degrade the quality of the site, while seemingly refusing to take the other suggestions that don't involve changing the code of a website used by thousands, just for your special snowflake. If you're given your special snowflake, where's my special snowflake (user ability to skin their own profile pages with css, pleasepleaseplease yeah, i know it ain't happening)?

Your reading habits are your own. Own that fact and adjust YOUR world to make things as you want them, don't ask others to change something. Or if you do, don't act surprised when others are against it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:18 PM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


Yes, hal_c_on, you're right. Because I often log out after posting, due to perhaps not-very-reasonable privacy concerns which, at the very least, are not shared by many other people, I should therefore eschew Metafilter, and pretty much all other internet sites. Thank you for your very helpful suggestion.
posted by Flunkie at 1:19 PM on February 6, 2010


Also, if you want to reply to and argue with everyone's suggestion, that's probably not going to help the tone of this thread.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:23 PM on February 6, 2010 [5 favorites]

Your reading habits are your own. Own that fact and adjust YOUR world to make things as you want them, don't ask others to change something. Or if you do, don't act surprised when others are against it.
I do not believe that my request would entail a significant amount of work.

I am not in any way or to any degree demanding that my request be implemented.

I am not sure why it is apparently unreasonable of me to make a request for something that I believe would be pretty simple to do, especially in light of the fact that I am not in any way or to any degree demanding it.

I am not surprised that others don't see a need for this; I am surprised that others who it would not affect in any way are vociferously, dismissively, hostilely, and sometimes bordering on insultingly, against it.

This is really getting tiresome.
posted by Flunkie at 1:24 PM on February 6, 2010


Yes, hal_c_on, you're right. Because I often log out after posting, due to perhaps not-very-reasonable privacy concerns which, at the very least, are not shared by many other people, I should therefore eschew Metafilter, and pretty much all other internet sites. Thank you for your very helpful suggestion.

Ummm...what?

I'm telling you to stay logged out, write your comments on wordpad, then sign in and post them into the appropriate threads to minimize the time you are signed in, and you're getting all "you're right...i shouldn't be internetting anymore".

Where is this hostility coming from? I was offering a suggestion that I use on some different sites, and I thought it might have helped you out.

What the hell dude?
posted by hal_c_on at 1:24 PM on February 6, 2010


Well, thank you then, hal_c_on, and I apologize for having misread your suggestion. My hostility towards you was in light of what I perceive to be the general (though not universal) tone towards me in this thread, combined with the fact that you came in declaring how I could win support despite the fact that you clearly hadn't read the thread. That doesn't excuse my behavior towards you, though, and again, I apologize.

As for your suggestion, thank you, but I don't need any further suggestions on how to cope with the current behavior of the sign out link. I already deal with it; I am simply making what I believe to be a minor request for a change that would, if implemented, improve the site for me in a small way.
posted by Flunkie at 1:32 PM on February 6, 2010


I understand that most people don't use the site the way that I do,

And yet you want the site changed to suit you rather than the vast majority of readers who do it differently. And yeah, I don't like this idea because I log out when I'm done and I don't want the page I was last reading left behind after I'm finished. Redirecting to the main page of the subsite you're on is fine, refreshing to the page you were reading not so much. Because as Netzapper says: One huge piece of personal information is what I'm looking at.

I was always under the impression that edge cases and unusual ways of using the site were dealt with with greasemonkey. I see no reason why this should be any different.
posted by shelleycat at 1:33 PM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


especially in light of the fact that I am not in any way or to any degree demanding it.

You've posted 25 times already in this thread. More than a quarter of the comments. Definitely sounding a wee bit demanding by now from over here.
posted by shelleycat at 1:37 PM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]

And yet you want the site changed to suit you rather than the vast majority of readers who do it differently.
The vast majority of readers are unaffected by this. Of those that are affected, the vast majority probably don't care one way or the other.

And, again, yes, I want this change, but that doesn't mean that I'm demanding it. Why is that so horrible?
And yeah, I don't like this idea because I log out when I'm done and I don't want the page I was last reading left behind after I'm finished.
Heal thyself. Why do you want the site to behave in the way that suits you? Just close the tab after logging out, or go to the next website that you're interested in. It hardly matters what page it redirects you to. Take matters into your own hands (as so many here, including you, are suggesting to me): Simply click the "close" button.
posted by Flunkie at 1:39 PM on February 6, 2010

You've posted 25 times already in this thread. More than a quarter of the comments. Definitely sounding a wee bit demanding by now from over here.
Well, I'm not demanding it. I actually don't follow the reasoning behind "is arguing for it" implies "is demanding it".
posted by Flunkie at 1:40 PM on February 6, 2010


> I think there's some serious ethical considerations about enabling Flunkies described Internet behavior.

What the fuck? That's a seriously assholish comment.

Yes, we all realize Flunkie's situation is not everyone's. That's very clear. Can we knock it off with the judgmental bullshit now? He's not asking the mods to take your firstborn.
posted by languagehat at 1:41 PM on February 6, 2010 [2 favorites]


Flunkie Sorry, didn't mean to appear to be joining a pile on, and for the record I'm not.

I do think the way you use Metafilter is odd, but that's entirely your business and no concern of mine and certainly nothing I'm going to berate you for. I do a lot of odd things myself, and I'm sure the people piling on you do as well.

As for your request I'm neither for it, nor against it. Obviously it won't effect, much less harm, me in any way shape or form.
posted by sotonohito at 1:42 PM on February 6, 2010


Thanks, flunkie.

Dude, I'm rooting for you because you are facing a wall of resistance for no other reason than the fact that having a grey background brings out the best in everyone here.

If I were you, I'd present this to PB showing that there's a logical reason for doing so, rather than "preference".

Sometimes I sign out and go back to the same page just to see what kind of ads show up on a "hamburger" or "taters" thread. Its kind of a pain, and I was wondering if you can help me out to make this process easier.

"Make delicious hamburges everytime".

I LOVE those hamburges ads.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:46 PM on February 6, 2010


I'm not seeing how Flunkie's request, if implemented, would be ripe for abuse. People using sockpuppets for evil can just be signed in as two or however many different accounts on separate browsers.

But I'm also not seeing how this protects one's privacy. Logging out doesn't clear your cookies or your browsing history. Having a feature that redirected you to the same thread you were reading when you log out also doesn't seem to do anything to protect your privacy.

I stay logged in pretty much all the time. At work I stay logged in, but if I leave my desk for longer than a couple minutes if makes me ctr-alt-del and password myself back to my desktop.

In spite of my confusion, I'm not seeing why this is such a terrible pony. Weird pony? Maybe. Not a bad one, though.
posted by rtha at 1:46 PM on February 6, 2010


I am not surprised that others don't see a need for this; I am surprised that others who it would not affect in any way are vociferously, dismissively, hostilely, and sometimes bordering on insultingly, against it.

Eh, that happens with pretty much every request. Often people want to examine all the possibilities of a feature request, whether it fixes a problem on the site or see if it would add some enhanced functionality, while zero negatives

This is really getting tiresome.

Would you like some pie?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:51 PM on February 6, 2010

But I'm also not seeing how this protects one's privacy. Logging out doesn't clear your cookies or your browsing history.
The reason that I do it is that I am concerned with someone walking in behind me and happening to see something like "Posting as: Flunkie". It is not because I am terribly concerned with people spying on me (although, as I've said, I do clear my cookies and history, but that's a different story).
posted by Flunkie at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2010


Gotcha.

Brandon, I would like some pie.
posted by rtha at 1:55 PM on February 6, 2010


What the fuck? That's a seriously assholish comment.

I do kind of feel bad about being a dick now, and I didn't actually read any comments after his explanation, and I kind of thought my mean things I had to say would be novel. If I saw he already got grief for it I'd not have posted.


Anyways, I wasn't really picking on Flunkie as much as was picking on this Mefi-obsessed guy in the cartoon I conjured in my head who has a shameful blue secret he has to very carefully hide from his family.
posted by floam at 2:08 PM on February 6, 2010


Brandon, I would like some pie.

Get me a slice a slice too, please!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2010


Man I would like to hear some ABBA.
posted by Mister_A at 2:30 PM on February 6, 2010


ELAINE! ELAINE! ELAINE!
posted by The Whelk at 2:33 PM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie: "
You've posted 25 times already in this thread. More than a quarter of the comments. Definitely sounding a wee bit demanding by now from over here.
Well, I'm not demanding it. I actually don't follow the reasoning behind "is arguing for it" implies "is demanding it"
"

Perhaps if you didn't feel the need to reply to every other comment, and present counterarguments to every single person who disagrees with you or points out that they don't want the site to work like you want it to, people wouldn't be perceiving you as argumentative in this thread. And this is not the first thread I've seen you babysit.

You also seem to be unwilling to accept that pb replied to you and sounded like he didn't want to implement this feature, and the seeming majority of other users don't want this feature, but you continue to doggedly argue for your position. At some point, assuming this feature isn't implemented, you have to let this go.
posted by IndigoRain at 2:49 PM on February 6, 2010


And yeah, I don't like this idea because I log out when I'm done and I don't want the page I was last reading left behind after I'm finished.

Heal thyself. Why do you want the site to behave in the way that suits you? Just close the tab after logging out, or go to the next website that you're interested in. It hardly matters what page it redirects you to. Take matters into your own hands (as so many here, including you, are suggesting to me): Simply click the "close" button.


I don't understand why you're dispensing advice that you huffily reject from others. If it hardly matters what page it redirects you to, what's the justification for your request?
posted by desuetude at 2:53 PM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hey, what's going on? I was logged out for a while.
posted by yhbc at 2:58 PM on February 6, 2010


I was told there would be punch and pie here.

*waits*
posted by elizardbits at 2:59 PM on February 6, 2010

I don't understand why you're dispensing advice that you huffily reject from others.
I'm not sure what advice I've huffily rejected, and the particular thing that you're quoting was more intended as showing something about the type of argument that shelleycat was employing than as an actual argument in favor of my request.

Goodbye.
posted by Flunkie at 3:02 PM on February 6, 2010


I'm not sure what advice I've huffily rejected, and the particular thing that you're quoting was more intended as showing something about the type of argument that shelleycat was employing than as an actual argument in favor of my request.

Goodbye.


Look, I'm trying raise a valid objection to your request taken from my actual use of this site, so maybe don't be all snotty to me about it?

You wish your last viewed page to be the redirect when you log back in, citing how you use the site to mitigate your privacy concerns. But several of us have pointed out that this creates a NEW privacy concern, namely the content of what you last viewed.

In response, you suggest that shelleycat, Netzapper, myself, and any quieter users sharing this opinion change our behavior in exactly the same fashion that a lot of people have suggested that you change yours, i.e., work around the site conventions to make it convenient for yourself.

You didn't address our concerns at all, dismissing it with reasoning (it hardly matters what page...) that contradicts your own request.
posted by desuetude at 3:14 PM on February 6, 2010


I have a feeling that most people have an overwhelmingly different experience of the site: they click "Sign Out" when they're done browsing and are about to walk away.

You left out the profuse profanity accompanied by hand gestures.

If you're on a shared computer, and you've been looking at an Ask Mefi on, say, genital warts, you might prefer it to default back to the homepage.

Actually when you think about it, that's a great way to turn a shared computer into your computer. As well as any other communal possessions one may have come into contact with.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:20 PM on February 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


*punches elizardbits*

*runs away with pie*
posted by rtha at 3:30 PM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not following closely so I could be wrong but I think I heard that someone with genital warts made that pie. Just sayin.
posted by Babblesort at 4:06 PM on February 6, 2010


Sign. Out?
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:11 PM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


The reason that I do it is that I am concerned with someone walking in behind me and happening to see something like "Posting as: Flunkie".

Would a stylesheet that hid both that line and the line at the top of the screen not be a better solution? It'd mean your sign in was never exposed, unlike now, where's it's exposed during the window where you're typing. (And that window is going to be large today, amirite?)
posted by bonaldi at 4:36 PM on February 6, 2010


Flunkie, did the kill-site-cookies-and-reload bookmarklet not work for you?
posted by flabdablet at 4:41 PM on February 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


*runs away with pie*

INTERNETS FISTICUFFS
posted by elizardbits at 4:47 PM on February 6, 2010


*TWWWWWEEEEEE* ANOTHER ROUND OF METABALL!
posted by The Whelk at 5:20 PM on February 6, 2010


PSKETTI & METABALLS!
posted by jonmc at 5:49 PM on February 6, 2010


First one around the house while eating an entire bag of gummi worms wins, Whelk!
posted by ocherdraco at 5:50 PM on February 6, 2010


*EAT ONLY GREEN FOR EXTRA POINTS!*
posted by The Whelk at 5:54 PM on February 6, 2010


And don't forget to ring the doorbell!
posted by ocherdraco at 6:04 PM on February 6, 2010


I am simply making what I believe to be a minor request for a change that would, if implemented, improve the site for me in a small way.

I don't have a dog in this fight because I couldn't care. I will point out that often a "simple" change isn't that simple. And changing ingrained site usage for any reason can be annoying.

I don't use facebook much at all because they seem to delight in changing the design, behavior, settings, and navigation between my every visit. That and I can't just pay them $5 to quit showing me scam adds or the same damn ad over and over again. But I digress.

There was an essay I read about things one should not consider when doing independent code development as reason to change your code. One of the reasons not to change code for is because the change would be simple. Either it adds benefit to more people or it doesn't.

In the end, doing something because you can do so easily isn't a good reason to do it.

As for the actual change, indifferent.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:33 PM on February 6, 2010


TAG YOU ARE IT CJORGENSEN

Double gummie no backies green!
posted by The Whelk at 6:40 PM on February 6, 2010


About time we had an alphabet thread.
posted by special-k at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2010


I don't eat gummi worms but if I did I would only eat the green ones because green is my favorite color, but only if somebody else would eat the other colors. As for gummi worms that are half green and half a different color that is craziness and too much to think about.
posted by longsleeves at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2010


But now I have regrettably stepped on the nascent alphabet thread.
posted by longsleeves at 7:21 PM on February 6, 2010


Could've been worse.
posted by special-k at 7:38 PM on February 6, 2010


DAMN YOU TO HELL, ALPHABET THREAD. DAMN, I SAY!!!
posted by yhbc at 7:46 PM on February 6, 2010


Eh.
posted by The Whelk at 7:48 PM on February 6, 2010


Four hundred gummie bears later...
posted by IndigoRain at 8:15 PM on February 6, 2010


Gummie bears???
posted by Sys Rq at 8:39 PM on February 6, 2010


How many?
posted by rtha at 8:50 PM on February 6, 2010


how many of the anti-flunkie posters would *actually* be inconvenienced by this change?
posted by russm at 8:50 PM on February 6, 2010


I don't know... zero?
posted by ocherdraco at 8:52 PM on February 6, 2010


Just drop it already cuz this thread is now about gummy worms.
posted by nevercalm at 9:14 PM on February 6, 2010


Klose thiz thred plz, kortex.
posted by Netzapper at 9:15 PM on February 6, 2010


Lime gummy worms? Otherwise, I'm not interested.
posted by divide_by_cucumber at 9:15 PM on February 6, 2010


MY gummi worms, bitches. MINE.
posted by The Whelk at 9:17 PM on February 6, 2010


I'm gummi go ahead and close this up.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:19 PM on February 6, 2010


Now wait a minute, we have to discuss which are superior... gummy bears or gummy worms.
posted by IndigoRain at 9:28 PM on February 6, 2010


I only eat the clear gummy bears because they don't contain any artificial coloring and I value my gummies for who they are on the inside
posted by Juicy Avenger at 9:29 PM on February 6, 2010


ROXAAAAANNNE YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT ON THE RED40
posted by Juicy Avenger at 9:29 PM on February 6, 2010


Oh, dear.
posted by longsleeves at 10:45 PM on February 6, 2010


Perhaps it's time to close this thread?
posted by rjs at 12:26 AM on February 7, 2010


Quite, since our alphabet game has been derailed a few times now.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:50 AM on February 7, 2010


Rails regardless, repartee remains required!
posted by flabdablet at 1:08 AM on February 7, 2010


Some people just care about pie
Some others just want you die
So let's all get merry!
The bald and the hairy
'Cos everything else is a lie.
posted by h00py at 1:29 AM on February 7, 2010


To die! Damn it, now it doesn't scan!
posted by h00py at 1:31 AM on February 7, 2010


UH-OH, SPAGHETTI-O
posted by Sys Rq at 1:38 AM on February 7, 2010


Vampira!
posted by longsleeves at 2:37 AM on February 7, 2010


I would like pie made from every users' first-borns. Yummy baby pie.
posted by exlotuseater at 3:34 AM on February 7, 2010


Wot?
posted by h00py at 3:37 AM on February 7, 2010


This was a supremely bizarre pony/flameout all in one. Best of the grey.

Flunkie, if this is truly something you'd like to see implemented, I think that you're going to do best with Greasemonkey. Write a script that looks for the delcookie line in the URL and hits your history(-1) up.

My post-mortem is that you took a very narrow view of what you perceived to be an easy-to-implement and unoffensive pony and kept reiterating your point over and over. It's NOT something that doesn't affect anyone else—your desire to traverse back to the page you were just on is just as valid as my desire to have the site remove me from the thread I was on fully so that I don't have to take the extra step of browsing further away or closing the tab.

If something like this were to be implemented, it would likely need to be implemented as an optional behavior, so users could elect which behavior they wanted. Instead, you wrote off the valid concern that the existing behavior is, for some people, MORE secure and thus preferred, stating repeatedly that your request would have no negative bearing on anyone else, so it shouldn't be a problem.

This rubbed people the wrong way, not least because the current pony already exists: it's called your back button. Since so many viable alternatives ALREADY exist for you (back button, Greasemonkey script, new tabs, etc) it's hard to find any sympathy to your request when you have a fringe case and an attitude about it. Add to that your intense defensiveness and this thread went downhill quickly.

I'd encourage you to consider that many people may like the existing behavior, and taking that from them or changing it would be as frustrating for them as your situation is for you. In the mean time, this is seriously an issues that is solved by binding the back button to a mouse button (I use the "horizontal-scroll-left") or a keyboard macro (alt+left arrow is the default) or just simply clicking the back button. Problem solved.
posted by disillusioned at 3:52 AM on February 7, 2010 [1 favorite]


My friends know im nerdy... but if they knew I just spent a good 40 minutes of my sunday morning reading about the logistics of logging out of a website I think the eye rolls would be so powerful that I would have to take a sick day from work tomorrow.
posted by pwally at 6:27 AM on February 7, 2010 [1 favorite]


GRIPPING THREAD WOULD READ AGAIN A++++++
posted by djgh at 9:34 AM on February 7, 2010


In the mean time, this is seriously an issues that is solved by binding the back button to a mouse button (I use the "horizontal-scroll-left") or a keyboard macro (alt+left arrow is the default) or just simply clicking the back button.

Backspace. Just sayin'.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:44 AM on February 7, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm going to add that it seems reasonable to have "sign out behavior" be a personal setting. (This is assuming that it's easy to provide the feature that Flunkie described, and easy to have it vary by user.) But yeah, have two choices in each user's Preferences area: Upon logout, (a) leave me on the page I was viewing, or (b) take me to the main (sub)site.

Neither seems inherently like the "correct" or best default behavior, so let people pick for themselves.

Also, signing out of gmail whilst doing a general google search (as opposed to reading gmail) leaves you on the search result page you were on before you clicked "logout." Just another example of this behavior. (Not to say that if google jumped off a bridge we should all do so as well, etc.)

fwiw, personally, I'd be fine with having (a) be the default.
posted by sentient at 12:31 PM on February 7, 2010


The bookmarklet mentioned repeatedly by flabdablet works perfectly.
posted by Akeem at 2:57 PM on February 7, 2010


I'd much rather be an asshole people follow than a nice man they ignore. I've been the latter for years and it sucks.
posted by flabdablet at 3:26 PM on February 7, 2010


« Older We do.   |   Thank you Metafilter Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments