> It is so common in SPA that the long-press of the back button to see the list of recent sites should be muscle-memory by now for everyone.
This is not a good excuse for laziness.
> But not ever using a site because of it seems silly when it's literally a half-second longer click.
I highly disagree. With this site at least it is actually possible to leave. Many websites I've come across with this issue, it is entirely impossible to leave without physically holding down the back button in the browser to get a list of history items, and then clicking a site from earlier.
> (Also, for this site I don't actually see the bug. So either they fixed it very rapidly, or GP was just referring to individual searchers being in the history, which is common for any search engine.)
This kind of thing is enough for me to never want to use a site. If it's a bug, high recommend you fix it, if it's not, highly recommend you reconsider your position.
I've known of a service that actually provides APIs. I cannot remember what it is called but such services exist for hotels and holidays too.
Iirc I stumbled upon one of the flight tracking services by pure chance.
Having said that, I feel like Skyscanner at the very least has their own systems in place. There have been times where I've chosen a ticket, have gone through to the website that sells the ticket at the price, and just before it goes through, Skyscanner validates that the price still exists, and then bails saying the price has increased or decreased. Usually it's not by a lot, but it has happened.
This is not a good excuse for laziness.
> But not ever using a site because of it seems silly when it's literally a half-second longer click.
I highly disagree. With this site at least it is actually possible to leave. Many websites I've come across with this issue, it is entirely impossible to leave without physically holding down the back button in the browser to get a list of history items, and then clicking a site from earlier.
> (Also, for this site I don't actually see the bug. So either they fixed it very rapidly, or GP was just referring to individual searchers being in the history, which is common for any search engine.)
Looks like they've fixed it.