Opera: after upgrading, it keeps suggesting me addresses on my bookmarks



  • I've upgraded from Opera 9.2x to 9.52, and after discovering that it accidentally forgot some of my preferences, I've also been bugged by the address bar.



    It keeps trying to auto-complete/giving me suggestions on typed-in address, even listing the ones in my bookmarks.



    Previosly, I've set it to not suggest nothing, and it worked as expected.



    Tools-> Preferences -> Hystory, I've already disabled this, both number of addresses and visited pages, and it still keeps bugging me. Listing my bookmarks.



    How do I stop this?



    Current version:

    Version 9.52

    Build 10108

    Platform Win32



  • While someone here might be able to help you.  I think the Opera support forums might be a appropriate place to ask.



  • I've posted here after a lot of googling, includiing their forum, and their irc channel.



    However, after a lot more googling, I've discovered that it's not possible to disable this. The only way to do is by disabling "Auto Drop Down" in the settings, that disables completly the functionalty to search typed-in urls/bookmarks/search.



  • This sounds like the piece of shit Awful Bar in FF3 that is keeping me from upgrading.  I will probably write an extension to completely mimic the old behavior at some point, but I'm hoping the devs wise up and listen to the vast number of users who want the built-in option to use the old functionality.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    I will probably write an extension to completely mimic the old behavior at some point, but I'm hoping the devs wise up and listen to the vast number of users who want the built-in option to use the old functionality.

    Or, you could just google "disable firefox awesome bar" and find this. Seems to work pretty well.



  • @Jeff S said:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    I will probably write an extension to completely mimic the old behavior at some point, but I'm hoping the devs wise up and listen to the vast number of users who want the built-in option to use the old functionality.

    Or, you could just google "disable firefox awesome bar" and find this. Seems to work pretty well.

    That only results in two options:
    1. Suppress the suggestions altogether by tweaking the about:config values (which is what I've done)
    2. Install an add-on that makes the results a single line each but doesn't change the search algorithm
    Not exactly the greatest set of choices. Why can't we get an option to go back to the FF2-style?



  • @bstorer said:

    That only results in two options:

    1. Suppress the suggestions altogether by tweaking the about:config values (which is what I've done)
    2. Install an add-on that makes the results a single line each but doesn't change the search algorithm

    Not exactly the greatest set of choices. Why can't we get an option to go back to the FF2-style?

    Are options 2 and 1 mutually exclusive?   Could you install oldbar and do the about:config tweaks (most are described here) ?  Wouldn't that pretty much get you where you were in FF2?   

    I admit that I like the "awesome" bar, so I haven't spent too much time trying all these options.




  • @Jeff S said:

    Are options 2 and 1 mutually exclusive?   Could you install oldbar and do the about:config tweaks (most are described here) ?  Wouldn't that pretty much get you where you were in FF2?   

    I admit that I like the "awesome" bar, so I haven't spent too much time trying all these options.

    The problem is that the retarded search algo searches the whole URL.  So if I want to go to php.net/blah in FF2, I just start typing "ph" and it auto-completes most of it.  With FF3 (using all of those tweaks), it will pick up pages like www.facebook.com/friends.php or whatever, because it has php somewhere in the URL. 



  • @mauricio said:

    Tools-> Preferences -> Hystory, I've already disabled this, both number of addresses and visited pages, and it still keeps bugging me. Listing my bookmarks.



    How do I stop this?
    Go to opera:config, stick "Addressbar Content Search" in the search bar, untick (it's in "User Prefs").



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The problem is that the retarded search algo searches the whole URL.  So if I want to go to php.net/blah in FF2, I just start typing "ph" and it auto-completes most of it.  With FF3 (using all of those tweaks), it will pick up pages like www.facebook.com/friends.php or whatever, because it has php somewhere in the URL. 

    Ah ... thanks for clarifying ....  Well, I say go for it, write an extension, sounds like there's a nice demand for one.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The problem is that the retarded search algo searches the whole URL.  So if I want to go to php.net/blah in FF2, I just start typing "ph" and it auto-completes most of it.  With FF3 (using all of those tweaks), it will pick up pages like www.facebook.com/friends.php or whatever, because it has php somewhere in the URL. 
    Exactly. If I type "tu", I'm not looking for YouTube or iTunes, I'm probably looking for Tubgirl or some tutu fetish site.



  • @bstorer said:

    If I type "tu", I'm not looking for YouTube or iTunes, I'm probably looking for Tubgirl or some tutu fetish site.

    To be fair, I think YouTube and iTunes can both sufficiently satisfy your needs. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The problem is that the retarded search algo searches the whole URL.  So if I want to go to php.net/blah in FF2, I just start typing "ph" and it auto-completes most of it.  With FF3 (using all of those tweaks), it will pick up pages like www.facebook.com/friends.php or whatever, because it has php somewhere in the URL. 

    Of course you're absolutely right that typing "c" and getting back all previously visted sites ending in ".com" is a special form of absolute stupidity, but the thing has to learn a little, and now I'm liking it plenty. It stopped matching .com soon enough.

    I used to be very annoyed that browsers didn't search inside urls when I couldn't remember exactly how the url started. The fact it looks in page titles as well is also awesome enough, but it looks like it prioritizes that over urls, which I dislike.

    It's a matter of habit, as well. Instead of typing "ph", you'd get used to typing something from the unique bits of the URL and title. You get used to that real quicklike, and curse at IE when you don't remember how some url or other started.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    Of course you're absolutely right that typing "c" and getting back all previously visted sites ending in ".com" is a special form of absolute stupidity, but the thing has to learn a little, and now I'm liking it plenty. It stopped matching .com soon enough.

    I used to be very annoyed that browsers didn't search inside urls when I couldn't remember exactly how the url started. The fact it looks in page titles as well is also awesome enough, but it looks like it prioritizes that over urls, which I dislike.

    It's a matter of habit, as well. Instead of typing "ph", you'd get used to typing something from the unique bits of the URL and title. You get used to that real quicklike, and curse at IE when you don't remember how some url or other started.

    However, the URLs I visit might have lots of differing parts inside, but will almost all share a common domain.  I'm used to being able to hit any of my common sites within 2 keystrokes.  It's cool if people like it, but a lot of people are also asking for the FF2 behavior back and so far the devs are not budging.  I will stick with FF2 until the option is there, or even move to IE8 if the Mozilla devs don't start listening to the community. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, the URLs I visit might have lots of differing parts inside, but will almost all share a common domain.  I'm used to being able to hit any of my common sites within 2 keystrokes.

     

    Stop trying to find your sites by typing "feti" and expecting them to come up.  You need to type the things that are different about the sites.  "Podo", "Ocul", "Grao", and "Epro" should cover the ones you're into I think...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm used to being able to hit any of my common sites within 2 keystrokes.

    So am I. I'm still able to. So are you, with a slight change of habit.



  • @dhromed said:

    So am I. I'm still able to. So are you, with a slight change of habit.

    Somehow I doubt that it will get much easier.  And asking a user to change their habits to adapt to a new UI that provides no benefit for that user over the old UI is bad software design.  It worked before, it should still work.  I can see trying to make improvements, but the old behavior needs to be an option, even if it is not the default.  Many other people feel the same way.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Somehow I doubt that it will get much easier.  And asking a user to change their habits to adapt to a new UI that provides no benefit for that user over the old UI is bad software design.  It worked before, it should still work.  I can see trying to make improvements, but the old behavior needs to be an option, even if it is not the default.  Many other people feel the same way.

     

    But there is a benefit.  It matches more URL's, and it learns what works for you.  If you want ESPN.com, and type "es", maybe initially ESPN.com is the 3rd in the list, but if you select it, the next time you type "es" it will bring you right to ESPN.COM.  Now, you have your two-keystroke match and it wasn't even really that hard.  And, if you want, you have the option of having it search your bookmarks, plus page titles and other things like that.  And if you don't remember how an URL starts (is it "mail.yahoo.com" or "yahoo.com/mail" or "www.yahoo.com/mail"?) you can now match URL's without worrying about that (just type "yahoo").  By all accounts, that sounds like an improvement to me.   

    I can understand that people can be set in their ways and don't like change, but surely you must understand that they didn't just randomly change the UI without adding additional features/benefits.

    I think it's kind of a silly reason not to move to a software product that is faster and much more stable than the predecessor.  Did you give it a shot for any extended period of time?  (firefox portable is a nice way to give it a test run)



  • @Jeff S said:

    I can understand that people can be set in their ways and don't like change, but surely you must understand that they didn't just randomly change the UI without adding additional features/benefits.
    Really?! It's unlikely that they changed the interface without adding anything worthwhile? Are you new to this site?



  • @bstorer said:

    Really?! It's unlikely that they changed the interface without adding anything worthwhile? Are you new to this site?
     

    ???

    They did add "worthwhile things" as already explained clearly in this thread. 


     



  • @Jeff S said:


    They did add "worthwhile things" as already explained clearly in this thread. 
    That's begging the question. I don't see anything worthwhile about not being sure which result will come up first if I type "tu" into my address bar.



  • @Jeff S said:

    It matches more URL's, and it learns what works for you.

    That's the problem -- I want it to match the URLs that start with whatever I'm typing, not just ones that contain part of it.  Machine learning is often tedious and flawed, too, and I don't see the reason I should have to train my fucking browser how to auto-complete a URL.  It's like training your car's gas pedal to make the car go faster.  Plus, you have to retrain it every time you clear your personal info.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jeff S said:

    They did add "worthwhile things" as already explained clearly in this thread. 

    That's begging the question. I don't see anything worthwhile about not being sure which result will come up first if I type "tu" into my address bar.
     

    I guess you missed my post that described the new features. Just because you don't like those new features doesn't mean that new features weren't added.



  • @Jeff S said:

    I guess you missed my post that described the new features. Just because you don't like those new features doesn't mean that new features weren't added.
    Just because they've added features doesn't mean the features don't suck. That you for some reason don't understand this is especially troubling, because features that suck might as well be one of the cornerstones of this site. For example, they could add a button that deletes everything on my hard drive, and while they're welcome to bill it as a feature, I'm going to find it very hard to see how it's worthwhile. While the "awesome bar" isn't as blatantly stupid, I fail to see anything worthwhile about.



  •  

    @bstorer said:

    @Jeff S said:
    I guess you missed my post that described the new features. Just because you
    don't like those new features doesn't mean that new features weren't
    added.
    Just because they've added features doesn't mean the
    features don't suck. That you for some reason don't understand this is
    especially troubling, because features that suck might as well be one
    of the cornerstones of this site. For example, they could add a button
    that deletes everything on my hard drive, and while they're welcome to
    bill it as a feature, I'm going to find it very hard to see how it's
    worthwhile. While the "awesome bar" isn't as blatantly stupid, I fail
    to see anything worthwhile about.
     

    And, again, that's
    your opinon and that's great.  I am sorry that I don't "understand that
    those features suck"; they work just fine for me and I make use of
    them.  I recognize they are not for everyone, and I also recognize that
    my opinion is just that -- an opinion.  You should consider learning
    that.

    Where opinions are not involved is saying that no new benefits were added.  They were added.  Searching bookmarks and not just typed URLs is a benefit that is helpful to some people; maybe not you, but surely you can recognize that others might like that feature. (I do)  Seaching anywhere in the URL, while annoying for some, is undeniably a benefit that was added that helps at least some people who might not remember a full URL or how it starts.  Seaching the page titles, while not good for you personally, is a new benefit that that allows some people to find pages if they know the title but forget the exact URL.  Leaning how to match URL's over time, while useless to you, is undeniably a new benefit that some people might find useful and helpful.  (again, I do)

    If
    you equate those added features and benefits to adding a worthless and
    harmful button that clears your hard drive, then that is a failing on
    your part.  I thought you were much smarter than that, to be honest. Or, maybe you are just bad at analogies?  But just because you feel a feature is worthless doesn't mean that everyone else in the whole world does.

    I understand that in your opinion
    (and many others) you liked the old way better; that's great.  All you have to say is "I liked the old way better" and who can argue with that?  But to
    say that everyone who likes the new way "doesn't understand that it
    sucks" and that the UI was just changed for shits and giggles and no
    benefits were added is simply ignorant.



  • @Jeff S said:

    I also recognize that
    my opinion is just that -- an opinion.  You should consider learning
    that.
    Oh, wise Jeff S, teach me your ways! I'm still laboring under the impression that my opinion is actually some sort half man/half water buffalo that roams the world devouring the souls of the recently deceased. How do I learn to understand tautologies, oh Master?
    @Jeff S said:
    Where opinions are not involved is saying that no new features or benefits were added.  They were added. 
    Depends on how you define a feature. If a feature is just something a program does, good or bad, then, sure, they've added a feature. I'd say instead that they took out an old feature. And I certainly wouldn't agree that they've added a new benefit.
    @Jeff S said:
    If
    you equate those added features and benefits to adding a worthless and
    harmful button that clears your hard drive, then that is a failing on
    your part.
    Oh, but that's just your opinion. Just because such a button might not be good for you personally doesn't mean that some people wouldn't appreciate being able to clear their who hard drive with the click of a button. Wiping the hard drive, while not good for you is a feature that could be added to allow some people to give their computers a fresh start all from the comfort of their browser window. Clearing the hard drive, while useless to you, is undeniably a new feature that some people find useful and helpful.
    @Jeff S said:
    I thought you were much smarter than that, to be honest. Or, maybe you are just bad at analogies?
    You don't need to use personal attacks to debate. You're better than that. Or maybe not.
    @Jeff S said:
    But just because you feel a feature is worthless doesn't mean that everyone else in the whole world does.
    Then everything's a feature! The severe memory leaks? Feature! Crashing on certain pages? Feature! Unsupported CSS? Feature!
    @Jeff S said:
    I understand that in your opinion
    (and many others) you liked the old way better; that's great.  All you have to say is "I liked the old way better" and who can argue with that?  But to
    say that everyone who likes the new way "doesn't understand that it
    sucks" and that the UI was just changed for shits and giggles and no
    benefits were added is simply ignorant.
    Anyone who doesn't think that interfaces are changed all the time for little more than shits and giggles is equally ignorant, perhaps moreso.



  • @bstorer said:

    Anyone who doesn't think that interfaces are changed all the time for little more than shits and giggles is equally ignorant, perhaps moreso.

     

    Again, that's great.  When I did say that interfaces are never changed for little more than shits and giggles?  We are talking about something specific here I thought.  What do other software products or other "WTFs" have to do with anything I have said or discussed in this thread?     If I give you specific examples of the benefits of Firefox's address bar change to refute your "it sucks and it is worthless" claim, then somehow that means that I am saying no software product ever has bad UI changes? How are you leaping to that conclusion?




  • @bstorer said:

    I'm still laboring under the impression that my opinion is actually some sort half man/half water buffalo that roams the world devouring the souls of the recently deceased.

    For the last time, that is your penis not your opinion.

     

    New functionality is always going to be useful to some people and useless to others, that's just the way software is.  And to users for whom the new features are of no value, the added UI complexity may be a bit annoying, but software has to evolve.  You inevitably end up with feature creep no matter what you do, and people even define feature creep differently.  However, a golden rule of UI design is that you never change the way a fundamental piece of the software works without offering the option to use the old way.  Expecting people to change their habits when there is no benefit for them is simply wrong and the FF devs have shown a stunning callousness in regards to the Awful Bar.  I understand that software will evolve and that many people like the Awful Bar -- that's fine.  To not provide a way to return to the old behavior is a ridiculous display of arrogance on the part of the devs.  They assume that just because they think the Awful Bar is better that everyone else is just wrong for wanting things the old way.  What they need to realize is that people have different needs and preferences and that trying to cram your preferences down the throats of your users is obnoxious and bad software design.



  • @Jeff S said:

    If I give you specific examples of the benefits of Firefox's address bar change to refute your "it sucks and it is worthless" claim
    I'm tired of going round and round in circles on this, so I'll repeat this again and then we're dropping it: I see no benefits and nothing which qualifies as a feature. All I see is that they gimped an old feature. Therefore, they did exactly that: created a new UI with no features or benefits.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, a golden rule of UI design is that you never change the way a fundamental piece of the software works without offering the option to use the old way.  Expecting people to change their habits when there is no benefit for them is simply wrong and the FF devs have shown a stunning callousness in regards to the Awful Bar. 
    Not to mention that every other browser around does it the old way, so it's a bit cocky on their part to think their solution so much better that nobody would want the old functionality back.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jeff S said:
    If I give you specific examples of the benefits of Firefox's address bar change to refute your "it sucks and it is worthless" claim
    I'm tired of going round and round in circles on this, so I'll repeat this again and then we're dropping it: I see no benefits and nothing which qualifies as a feature. All I see is that they gimped an old feature. Therefore, they did exactly that: created a new UI with no features or benefits.

    And we all thank you for your opinion. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    New functionality is always going to be useful to some people and useless to others, that's just the way software is.  And to users for whom the new features are of no value, the added UI complexity may be a bit annoying, but software has to evolve.  You inevitably end up with feature creep no matter what you do, and people even define feature creep differently.  However, a golden rule of UI design is that you never change the way a fundamental piece of the software works without offering the option to use the old way.  Expecting people to change their habits when there is no benefit for them is simply wrong and the FF devs have shown a stunning callousness in regards to the Awful Bar.  I understand that software will evolve and that many people like the Awful Bar -- that's fine.  To not provide a way to return to the old behavior is a ridiculous display of arrogance on the part of the devs.  They assume that just because they think the Awful Bar is better that everyone else is just wrong for wanting things the old way.  What they need to realize is that people have different needs and preferences and that trying to cram your preferences down the throats of your users is obnoxious and bad software design.
     

    Now that's a thoughtful and intelligent post on the topic. Well-stated, and I agree on all points. A preference to use the old bar would be indeed be nice.  At some point, though, I would think that you'd have to remove legacy code to keep your application streamlined and efficient as you move from version to version.  Maybe that's why they made that choice in this case.  (Or maybe they were just cocky.  Who knows!)



  • @bstorer said:

    @Jeff S said:
    If I give you specific examples of the benefits of Firefox's address bar change to refute your "it sucks and it is worthless" claim
    I'm tired of going round and round in circles on this, so I'll repeat this again and then we're dropping it: I see no benefits and nothing which qualifies as a feature. All I see is that they gimped an old feature. Therefore, they did exactly that: created a new UI with no features or benefits.
    My favorite part about this thread is that it started out being about Opera.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    My favorite part about this thread is that it started out being about Opera.

    Opera's such an unpopular browser that it can't even keep a thread going without people changing the subject to Firefox.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Opera's such an unpopular browser that it can't even keep a thread going without people changing the subject to Firefox.

    That or the fact that it's a [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/9730/178047.aspx#178047]one-line solution[/url] to the OP's problem in Opera whereas such a basic option doesn't seem to be available in Firefox, leading to a large number of posts from Firefox users who don't like the feature bickering with those who do. 😛



  • @benryves said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Opera's such an unpopular browser that it can't even keep a thread going without people changing the subject to Firefox.

    ...blah... Opera ...blah blah... Firefox ...blah blah blah... Firefox ...

    See, you can't even complete an entire sentence without changing the subject to Firefox!



  • I don't see what's so awesome about it, but I'm not really clamoring for FF2's old behaviour either.  I don't need it to suggest anything at all.  My frequently visited is bookmarked or in the Most Visted quick link thingy.  If I need to go back to some obscure site, that's what the history is for.

    The best new feature of FF3 (at least I don't remember it in FF2) is the listing of recently closed tabs.  Useful when I get close happy.

     



  • @lpope187 said:

    I don't need it to suggest anything at all.  If I need to go back to some obscure site, that's what the history is for.

    The best new feature of FF3 (at least I don't remember it in FF2) is the listing of recently closed tabs.  Useful when I get close happy.

     

    You just don't want people to see your porn sites in the location bar when they browse on your machine.

    FYI, Recently Closed Tabs was in FFX 2. ❤


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.