• Randyd (unregistered)

    maybe all they want is smokersignup guys who actually use ie... in some sort of wierd cross-pollination scheme.

  • Volmarias (cs)

    Funny, the page worked in Opera. I guess it's nice that they do a lot of work pretending to be IE so that other, poorly coded pages work nicely.

    Still, this is a pretty big wtf. If they're using an anchro tag for this already, why not go the extra mile and just add "If you are not redirected automatically, click here" ? I mean, really.

  • snoofle (cs)

    It's enterprisey! No more links going to where you (the user) think they might be going :)

  • cooldudman (cs)

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!

  • Jojosh_the_Pi (cs)

    Remember those lawsuits targeting Philip Morris, and they had to pay up? (Not to mention the money they have to spend on commercials telling people it's unhealthy to smoke). Apparently, the money came out of the IT budget.

  • mlathe (cs)

    technically it should be a 301(MOVED_PERMANENTLY ) redirect

    300 (SC_MULTIPLE_CHOICES) implies there is a choice of multiple redirects

    http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/httpclient/redirects.html

  • DigitalLogic (cs) in reply to Volmarias

    I'm using Opera too, and I stared at it for a 3-4 minutes trying to figure out what was wrong.

    Besides adding "If you are not redirected automatically, click here", I think they should have gone the extra mile and used the BLINK tag.

  • richleick (cs)

    What I find funny is that the site runs Java Server Pages and yet they code for IE.  And who says the two can't play nice together (Sun and Microsoft that is).

  • mlathe (cs) in reply to Jojosh_the_Pi

    I would guess that making it difficult to access this court order content, would be in violation of the settlements against the tobacco industry. Albeit that they maybe didn't do it on purpose, but one must remember that it is in the industry's best interest to limit the number of people who see these sites

  • little whipper snapper (unregistered)

    Say what you will about Visual Studio 2003 (7.1), the IDE was not responsible for this monstrosity.

    Now just how the author of the code arose at such a situation is left as an excercise for the reader.

  • marvin_rabbit (cs) in reply to cooldudman
    cooldudman:

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!


    ... by volume.
  • WeatherGod (cs)

    <bad joke>
    Well, you need to open a Window to vent any cigarette smoke from your house.
    And smoking is bad for Foxes, Penguines, and Apple trees...
    </bad joke>

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to mlathe

    mlathe:
    I would guess that making it difficult to access this court order content, would be in violation of the settlements against the tobacco industry. Albeit that they maybe didn't do it on purpose, but one must remember that it is in the industry's best interest to limit the number of people who see these sites

    Maybe, but I don't think the marketing folks at the Tobacco co's are stupid. Surely they've long figured out that nobody reads warning labels (or at least, nobody takes them seriously, or even cares). It seems to follow that anyone who even bothers to click through to the site isn't going to change their habit because of the text on some web page.

    Face it, if someone at work offered you some home cooked brew, and SERIOUSLY told you that it could cause you to die, how quickly would you drink it? Smokers know all the risks, but don't care (I was one of them - it took my second kid to wake me up - yes, I was just that stupid).

  • Opera Fan (unregistered)
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    Now, if you were using something other than Internet Explorer, you likely experienced a familiar sight: a blank page as a result of the site being coded for IE only.

    Thought I'd say this:

    It worked in Opera. [oddly]

  • Raven (cs)

    So what?

    A leading IT recruitment company uses javascript for their links in the menu. To display a simple 'log in' link (in norwegian 'Logg inn') it looks like this.

    <font face="Courier New"><table node="" class="navi" onmouseover="this.className ='naviOver';" 
    onmouseout
    ="this.className ='navi';"
    onclick
    ="loadPage('/MPNet3/startContent.asp?','')"
    border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="148">
    <tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" width="16">
    <img src="Images/pixel.gif" alt="" border="0" height="1" width="16"></td>
    <td style="padding: 2px 0px;" height="12" valign="middle" width="157">
    Logg inn</td></tr></tbody></table></font>
    The porpose might that the links should still have the same color after they have been clicked (btw; is this what they call AJAX??). The drawback is that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link.

    You can watch it here.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    This actually makes a lot of sense: Since most crawlers will not execute Javascript, they're effectively preventing automated crawler redirects. This may help keeping the google ranking low.

  • GoatCheez (cs)

    OMG!?!??!?!?!?! Naming the actual company!??!?!?!! Did someone's spherical devices drop this morning?!?!?!?! ;-P

    Ahhhhh.... very good... very good.... good good good...... Thank you Alex :-)

    Maybe this is actually a really inventive way to check for browser support of the site?

    Survey Says?
    NO

    lol
    At least they didn't use an activex control to move the mouse to the location bar and then type the replacement in lol.... Maybe they're saving that for version 2.0 lol...

  • John Bigboote (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    This actually makes a lot of sense: Since most crawlers will not execute Javascript, they're effectively preventing automated crawler redirects. This may help keeping the google ranking low.


    There are ways to do this that are significantly less mentally defective. Like the well-known, well-documented, and universally-supported window.location.href.
  • James (unregistered) in reply to John Bigboote

    It's on purpose.

    They figure people who are smart enough to use Firefox are not stupid enough to smoke at the first place, so there's no reason to let them just come and waste bandwidth.

  • Sean (cs)

    Oh, I get it.  This is a stop-smoking campaign targeted at Firefox users.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    dande:
    Since smokers do not show signs of intelligence in the first place, maybe the people at Marlboro figured they did not have to try it with any other browser than IE?

    Just a thought...
          

    Considering that I'm smoking a Marlboro as I write this, I think I find that comment offensive :)

    Captcha: clueless (Guess it kind of fits)

  • mlathe (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:

    mlathe:
    I would guess that making it difficult to access this court order content, would be in violation of the settlements against the tobacco industry. Albeit that they maybe didn't do it on purpose, but one must remember that it is in the industry's best interest to limit the number of people who see these sites

    Maybe, but I don't think the marketing folks at the Tobacco co's are stupid. Surely they've long figured out that nobody reads warning labels (or at least, nobody takes them seriously, or even cares). It seems to follow that anyone who even bothers to click through to the site isn't going to change their habit because of the text on some web page.

    Face it, if someone at work offered you some home cooked brew, and SERIOUSLY told you that it could cause you to die, how quickly would you drink it? Smokers know all the risks, but don't care (I was one of them - it took my second kid to wake me up - yes, I was just that stupid).

    I think you are missing the point. Even though the marketing group doesn't like telling people "don't use our product" and even though the users may not listen to the message that smoking has risks, it doesn't mean that the industry can ignore the court orders. Thats like saying that a guy with a DUI can continue to drive b/c not driving would be inconvienent and nobody cares.

  • seymore15074 (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:

    Maybe, but I don't think the marketing folks at the Tobacco co's are stupid. Surely they've long figured out that nobody reads warning labels (or at least, nobody takes them seriously, or even cares). It seems to follow that anyone who even bothers to click through to the site isn't going to change their habit because of the text on some web page.

    Face it, if someone at work offered you some home cooked brew, and SERIOUSLY told you that it could cause you to die, how quickly would you drink it? Smokers know all the risks, but don't care (I was one of them - it took my second kid to wake me up - yes, I was just that stupid).

    A person smokes out of stupidity?  ...And all this time I thought cigarettes were addictive!  Ha!

  • reed (cs)

    There isn't a good reason (it seems) to even have a redirect here. There's no condition on where the redirect goes.  

    In fact, there's never a good reason to have any kind of redirect ever unless you have removed a page from the web for a good reason.  The first web server program (NCSA httpd?) did us all a great disservice by letting URLs map directly to file names. It should have abstracted them at least a little bit.

  • ParkinT (cs) in reply to little whipper snapper

    Anonymous:
    Say what you will about Visual Studio 2003 (7.1), the IDE was not responsible for this monstrosity. Now just *how* the author of the code arose at such a situation is left as an excercise for the reader.

    Paula did it; with a code generator (probably html to php)

  • Lemmy (cs)

    Whats the big deal? You can still reach the second page in Firefox by doing the following:

    1. press Tab
    2. press Enter
    That is just 2 key strokes! Every Firefox user should be used to this procedure.

    The real wtf is they didn't say on the page "If you are a Firefox user, please press Tab, then Enter"

  • actionscripted (unregistered) in reply to seymore15074

    A paralelle WTF is that someone suggested smokers smoke because they're stupid...

    ... the fact that they're addictive and delicious (yes, delicious) obviously have nothing to do with it.

  • Kikoz (unregistered)

    Actually, if you need a permanent redirection from site B to site A (and I believe that's what PM needs here), just point domain A to the IP address of the site B. Why do you need any kind of server- or client- redirection? DNS server should work here. WTF????

  • WeatherGod (cs)

    Looking further into this site, I notice that they want users to submit the last four digits of their Social Security Number.  While they say that it is secure and that they will delete that information, somehow, I don't quite trust their programmers to get it right...

  • oncogenesis (unregistered)
    <body onload="javascript:redirect();">

    This line is wrong. The value of the onload attribute is supposed to be a script, not a URL. I'm surprised this crap works in any browser.

  • Joe Camel (unregistered)

    A secondary wtf is using the javascript: protocol inside an event handler. <FONT color=#000000>I hate that.</FONT>

  • WeatherGod (cs) in reply to WeatherGod

    In addition, they didn't quite get their SSL certification to exactly match site name, which is enough to send up a warning message in browsers.  I have seen this mistake before, but only in sites that were not professionally done.  This is the first I have ever seen this on a commerial site.

  • Per Persson (unregistered) in reply to Sean
    Sean:
    Oh, I get it.  This is a stop-smoking campaign targeted at Firefox users.

    I thought so, too. They don't want Firefox users to start smoking. That's great! Let the IE users kill themself.
  • Luke (unregistered) in reply to Sean
    Sean:
    Oh, I get it.  This is a stop-smoking campaign targeted at Firefox users.
    No, it's a boycott-firefox campaign targeted at smokers :)
  • Kenji (unregistered) in reply to Per Persson

    Yeah, I figured this was just a cleaver campaign to kill off IE users by giving them cancer. 

  • pbounaix (cs)

    <FONT face=Tahoma>weird, i'm using Firefox version 1.5.0.1 and the sites (both the coupon and phillipmorris) work just fine...</FONT>

  • ptr2void (unregistered) in reply to Volmarias

    "why not go the extra mile"

    No, no, no...the extra mile is what you go for a Camel not a Marlboro...
    OK, guess I'm showing my age :P

  • Benzaholic (unregistered)
    [image] noname:

    The chief drawback is that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link.

    The two drawbacks are that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link, and an inability activate the link besides the mouse.

    The three drawbacks are that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link, an inability to activate the link besides the mouse, and blatant disregard for the powers of CSS.

    NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition....

    (Captcha: Paula)

  • PumaCub (unregistered)

    Here is the code on Cingular.com:

    <form name="frmCingIdx" action="/index_b2b_orange" method="post">	
    <input type="hidden" name="ClientIP" value="192.55.52.3" />
    </form>
    <script>
    document.frmCingIdx.ClientIP.value = "192.55.52.3";
    document.frmCingIdx.submit();
    </script>
    It renders a similar blank page in FireFox.

  • dafoo (unregistered)

    The site seems to work fine in both konqueror and firefox.

  • Mike Rod (cs) in reply to cooldudman
    cooldudman:

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!

     

    <Sarcasm>

    Hehe how about "THE BROWSER YOU'LL EVER DESIRE"

    <\Sarcasm>

    (In honor to the flame wars follies)

     

    Mike Rod

  • mlathe (cs)
    Anonymous:
    Raven:
    So what?

    A leading IT recruitment company uses javascript for their links in the menu. To display a simple 'log in' link (in norwegian 'Logg inn') it looks like this.

    <FONT face="Courier New"><table node="" class="navi" onmouseover="this.className ='naviOver';" 
    onmouseout
    ="this.className ='navi';"
    onclick
    ="loadPage('/MPNet3/startContent.asp?','')"
    border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="148">
    <tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" width="16">
    <img src="Images/pixel.gif" alt="" border="0" height="1" width="16"></td>
    <td style="padding: 2px 0px;" height="12" valign="middle" width="157">
    Logg inn</td></tr></tbody></table></FONT>
    The porpose might that the links should still have the same color after they have been clicked (btw; is this what they call AJAX??). The drawback is that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link.

    You can watch it here.

    The chief drawback is that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link.

    The two drawbacks are that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link, and an inability activate the link besides the mouse.

    The three drawbacks are that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link, an inability to activate the link besides the mouse, and blatant disregard for the powers of CSS.

    another one that is annoying is that they broke the back button. That's why redirects should always be done using 301 directs and not this JS crap

  • Bus Raker (cs) in reply to Randyd

    Wonder how many of you web guys have gotten in touch with the Phillip Morris IT department inquiring about a job ...

     

     

  • noname (unregistered) in reply to Bus Raker
    Bus Raker:

    Wonder how many of you web guys have gotten in touch with the Phillip Morris IT department inquiring about a job ...

     

     

    Despite the fact that we come here day after day, don't get the wrong idea about us. We're not that into pain.

  • channer (cs) in reply to dafoo
    Anonymous:
    The site seems to work fine in both konqueror and firefox.


    it does in konqueror for me, but not in firefox (unless you tab/enter)
  • Christ0ph (cs) in reply to cooldudman
    cooldudman:

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!




    Do I know you? There cant be that many of you going around saying that?
  • AndrewVos (unregistered)

    Who cares? IE is better than FireFux. Wake up ;)

  • Tim (unregistered) in reply to richleick
    Well the real website might be JSP, but the forwarding page has this tell 
    tale marker:

    <meta name="GENERATOR" Content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1">

    Is this the way microsoft generates links, or is this a custom link component?
  • electronerd (unregistered) in reply to oncogenesis

    ... that is a script, not a url ...

  • Siebz (unregistered)

    Why the hell would you dynamically create a link on page load and simulate a click on it?  What a dumb-ass work around-around-around.

    That's just stooopid. (Just like smokers)

    Yet another example which proves that the simplist solution is usually the best solution.

    <font size="1">
    Who can respect a person who lets a stupid substance have control over them?  Its a sign of weakness!</font>

Leave a comment on “Redirection with Smoke And ... Smoking?”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article