InformAction Forums

On this site http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm as you get ahead of the pages using the next link....Say after you arrive at the billionaire no 7 ,tried clicking the back button in the browser.The page stayed put.Only on the second click did it go to the previous page. It happened in other sites as well. It seems to misbehave on the first back button press.FF 3.0.11

No problem here, SeaMonkey 1.1.17.
Nor here, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1pre) Gecko/20090601 SeaMonkey/2.0b1pre.

Now there is something weird.
Your first links was #2,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jun/15/slide-show-2-worlds-richest-women.htm.

If then go to 3, 4, 5, ... then back to 5, 4, 3, 2, all is well.

If you then click the back button to #1,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jun/15/slide-show-1-worlds-richest-women.htm, at that point, you have lost your forward (or is it back) button history.

therube wrote:No problem here, SeaMonkey 1.1.17.
Nor here, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1pre) Gecko/20090601 SeaMonkey/2.0b1pre.

Now there is something weird.
Your first links was #2,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jun/15/slide-show-2-worlds-richest-women.htm.

If then go to 3, 4, 5, ... then back to 5, 4, 3, 2, all is well.

If you then click the back button to #1,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jun/15/slide-show-1-worlds-richest-women.htm, at that point, you have lost your forward (or is it back) button history.

Unable to reproduce OP issue with Fx2.20.

With regard to therube's issue, when you are back at the home page after his steps, I can click the dropdown arrow in between forward and back arrows, click "World's Richest Women", and it takes me to the Wal-Mart person and the forward arrow is restored. Go figure.

Oh, you know why I saw my "issue", I observed it & said it incorrectly. What happened is to be expected ...

Your first links was #2,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm.

If then go to 3, 4, 5, ... then back-arrow to 5, 4, 3, 2, all is well.

If you then click the back button to #1,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm, at that point, you have lost your forward (or is it back) button history.

If instead you did this, then it works as "expected", there is no "problem".

Your first links was #2,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm.

If then go to 3, 4, 5, ... then back-button to 5, 4, 3, 2, all is well.

If you then click the back button to #1,
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm, at that point, you have NOT lost your forward (or is it back) button history.

Ok Folks ,seems to get weirder or is it?.
I have NS allowed (whitelisted) for that site. I went here..
http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2 ... -women.htm

Before doing anything I hit the dropdown arrow and was surprised to find the site LISTED TWICE . Then I pressed the next button ,and checked the drop down and whereas logically only 2 sites are to be present now there are 4.

But with NS blocking the site ,the behaviour is perfect but it also blocks the js which is required for the comments /discussion board immediately below at every page.

So FF lists the site twice for the page and one for the discussion board ,hence 2 clicks are required to go back and my initial observation in tune with that. Even on clean profile the behaviour is ditto and seems to be a FF issue.

By the way therube your previous post beats my modest intelligence or was it intended to be humorous .You can bring in your observation now.

Has "Queer" become Questionable? I thought it was a deviation from the ordinary ,but seemed to have other devious import as well.Thanks for correcting.

What about the core issue in the post?

My point was you could get different results depending upon if you used the back-button on the web page itself, as opposed to using the back-arrow in your browser.

nagan wrote:Has "Queer" become Questionable? I thought it was a deviation from the ordinary ,but seemed to have other devious import as well.Thanks for correcting.

It's a perfectly legitimate word, and you used it properly. Unfortunately (and we discussed this a bit), too many people seem to take it the "wrong" way (the slang and disparaging meaning). Sad, but true. Sorry.