Forget about this site delete all the cache

[moonshiner]

As the title says in the history sidebar "Forget about this site" delete all the cache. I tried with a fresh profile and the same thing happens.

[therube]

Confirmed.
(Looks like it's been that way for some time now.)

[Moonchild]

Long-established and desired behaviour for a number of reasons.

[moonshiner]

It can't be a desired behavior because "this site" doesn't mean "every site". If someone wants to delete the cache plus other things for every site he can use "Clear Recent History" and in "Time range to clear" select Everything.

Forget about this site should delete everything about that site, if deleting the cache for only one site is a technical impossibility or too difficult to implement then this option should delete everything about that site except for the cache or this option should be removed. But it's "WONTFIX" so don't fix it.

[Moonchild]

You really don't seem to get it, but I'll try to run you through the design here.

The option does exactly what it says it does. "Forget about this site" is a very thorough and aggressive option that, as the name says, is intended to remove everything related to a particular site, to restore the state as if that site had never been visited before. That includes cookies, storage, history, site preferences, etc. and also all items related to that site in the web cache, because if left behind both local inspection and a remote site can detect previous data from that site when not re-downloaded because it's been cached (so it's not fully forgotten in that case).

Cache items are particularly bothersome in this respect because it cannot be determined after the fact if a cached element belonged to a specific site visit (think of third-party cached data, dynamic data that doesn't have a remote URI, etc.). So a domain- or URL-based removal of cached web content would be wholly incomplete. A time-based removal of cached items would also not suffice because "forget" is a time range of "all".
This leads to the only proper action being removing all cached web data. Any other action on cached web content would be incomplete.

So, the data removed from cached web content that didn't actually belong to the site will also be removed (as collateral) when you choose "forget about this site" because it is necessary to be certain the site is actually forgotten completely.

Wanting to preserve the maximum amount of cached web content is nice of course, but if it can't reasonably be done then there is the additional point to consider that cached web content is volatile by its very nature and may be purged at any time by any action taken, and it's well within scope of this function to nuke it.

[moonshiner]

I was perfectly aware that this option was going to wipe every data including the cache for "this site", and I didn't care as long it was limited in wiping all the data in connection only to "this site" as implied from the name, but it wiped the cache for every site. That was the first and last time in using that idiotic option, if I want to wipe all the cache since the Big Bang I would use the "Clear Recent History".

Only through an Orwellian mumbo jumbo "this site" became "every site" only for the cache. As the name imply it should wipe only data for that site, if for some data, in this case only the cache this is not technically possible and you are limited in wiping all the cache, you have only two choices:

A) Don't wipe the cache

B) Wipe all the cache even if nobody asked for it as it can't be inferred from the phrase "this page" and why not put an alias in ~/.bashrc to recursively wipe root and the whole disk and hire a pyromaniac hitman to wipe the user and his home.

What is the most elegant and logical option to solve this problem, well, of course option B.

[Moonchild]

Nothing Orwellian about it.

I suggest you get some coffee to wake up, then re-read my previous post (and repeat that until you actually understand what I'm saying) where it's all clearly explained.
If you can only understand by way of example, then let me know (by asking nicely) and I'll run through an example with you.

[adesh]

moonshiner, there is technical limitation in identifying the cache entries for a particular website as the entries are created probably using some sort of hash function and it is technically impossible to "un-hash" something to know the original value.

Also, if cache is deleted you don't lose anything of significance. You may not want to lose it if you have a very slow connection and websites take ages to load without it. Cache in computing is always has a volatile nature and it is there just to speed things up, and by definition it can always be regenerated from the original data. So there is no loss to speak.

If you have trouble understanding anything of it or any specific question, please say so. As Moonchild said you can have him explain things in more detail using a concrete example if you wish.

[moonshiner]

This esoteric "feature" gives the false impression to be able to wipe all the data including the cache exclusive of that site, but due to a technical limitation it can't wipe the cache of only one site but only all the cache.

Ok I'm fine with that but you can't wipe data from other sites when this option imply otherwise without opening a warning window like when closing multiple tabs with an option to not show it again and explaining that due to this technical limitation it will wipe all the cache and if you are fine with it press the continue button.

[Moonchild]

Cache is volatile and does not warrant a confirmation box. You aren't wiping any data from other sites.
Did you know that any cached web content can be removed at any point in time just by using the browser? Should we pop up a confirmation box then as well for it being a side effect of another function?

The feature is not esoteric, and does not give a false impression; it does exactly what it says on the label. The only thing you don't seem to get from all of this is that other volatile, cached, temporary data is also removed as collateral, but that does not at all change the function of the option. When it comes to cached web content, it is simply not possible to be more specific in your removal of cache entries without either making cache entries unique to one particular site instance (which they can't be, since that would negate the caching function by having multiple copies stored of the same data from the same URL, at which point it's just wasting disk space) or being incomplete in your removal (negating the function's sole purpose).
I could say more but I'd just be re-iterating what I myself and adesh have already said in our posts above.

[moonshiner]

The moment I found that the whole cache was wiped I understood that it's not technical possible to wipe only the cache for a specific site. I wasn't asking to change the way the cache is managed in making the wiping of the cache of a single site an option if this is a technical impossibility.

I said said that this "Forget about this site" is misleading because it gives the impression that is going to wipe all the data including the cache for only a specific site, but wiping the cache for a specific site is impossible and you discover it only after all the cache is wiped. It's misleading because it wipes some data for "this site" and other data (only the cache) for all sites.

I said that if you want to keep this option without a prompt informing the user of the technical impossibility to wipe the cache for a single site and the necessity to wipe the cache for all sites and not just "this site" you need to limit the wiping to only that data that can be deleted for only a specific site excluding the cache because the way this option is formulated the user expects the wiping to be limited only to the data for a single site and you can't wipe the cache for all sites when he's expecting the wiping of the cache to be limited to only one site.

I can't convey my message maybe because I'm not a native speaker but this post can't be going on with you and I re-iterating our position. Just lock it.

[moonbat]

I said that if you want to keep this option without a prompt informing the user of the technical impossibility to wipe the cache for a single site and the necessity to wipe the cache

Anyone playing around with cache settings is expected to know what a cache is in the context of computer software, and that by definition what is stored in the cache is temporary data that is not indexed or mapped to anything else. It's not the job of the browser to explain something as basic as this.

the way this option is formulated the user expects the wiping to be limited only to the data for a single site and you can't wipe the cache for all sites when he's expecting the wiping of the cache to be limited to only one site.

Only a user who doesn't know how caches work would expect that, and as iterated such a user shouldn't be messing around with settings. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Besides why are you so obsessed with selective deletion of cache, is your internet access so stunningly expensive that you'll go bankrupt if the browser again downloads data for other sites after the cache gets cleared?

[Moonchild]

you need to limit the wiping to only that data that can be deleted for only a specific site excluding the cache

"Forget about this site" is, as I already stated above, (re)setting the browser to a state "as if the site had never been visited before".
If you still have cached web content for the site by excluding the cache from this "forget" process, then that does not satisfy the requirements for "forgetting about the site", because the browser obviously has visited the site before if there is data for it in its cache.
Both a local user of the computer (by inspecting the cache) and the visited website can see this previous website visit if there is cached web content, because the browser (by design) does not re-download cached web content (that's the whole point of a cache) which the website visited can see.

[moonshiner]

I'm not obsessed with selective deletion of cache, I said it was and will be the last time in using such an option. I was curious to know if it was possible to wipe only the cache for a single site, after seeing all the cache wiped now I know it's not possible. Being such a noob reading the option "Forget about this site" I thought it would wipe all data including the cache only for that site, but now I know it should be read as "Wipe all the cache plus all the other data about this site". This was self-evident to everyone but me. Now I know a new thing, you never stop learning.

[vannilla]

I'm not obsessed with selective deletion of cache

To be honest, only people obsessed with caches will bother with them.
The purpose of caches is to be an invisible entity speeding up whatever it is that the program does (in the case of the browser it avoids re-downloading resources), so normal users shouldn't even know the thing exists.
Of course because of all the privacy concerns caches have been under scrutiny even by uninformed people, but normally "forget about this site" actually does what it says on the tin since it deletes all the data stored by the browser associated with that site.
The fact that you noticed it also deletes the whole cache is purely coincidental since the cache should be invisible under normal circumstances.

[adesh]

I was going to post very similar to what vannilla did, and I'll just post it anyway .

Cache is totally an internal thing to the browser. (You may want to read the previous sentence again). It's just there to speed things up and should not be considered a part of data. Also, cache by definition is volatile in nature, i.e. browser can delete it even during its normal operation.

Normal users shouldn't be concerned about it other than having some control over it in the form of setting up a specific size for it and being able to clear it when needed.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I personally can't believe any of you are engaged in this debate. He is obviously just a troublemaker with an idea in his head that happens to be flat out wrong.

Since he won't accept the answer and will only keep arguing or raging over it and the function as currently designed won't be changed I can't see the point of continuing the discussion.

[ron_1]

I personally can't believe any of you are engaged in this debate. He is obviously just a troublemaker with an idea in his head that happens to be flat out wrong.

Since he won't accept the answer and will only keep arguing or raging over it and the function as currently designed won't be changed I can't see the point of continuing the discussion.

It seems like he does accept the answer, based on his last post.

[Moonchild]

It seems like he does accept the answer, based on his last post.

It only took a dozen posts by several people in this thread and several visits to 2 IRC channels to finally accept that this is the way it is, but still arguing the point anyway.

Locking this.