Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!

Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.

Comments on How can I halt Windows from forthwith switching to Google Chrome, after I click on URLs on Skype?

Parent

How can I halt Windows from forthwith switching to Google Chrome, after I click on URLs on Skype?

+2
−4

Whenever I click on an URL in Skype, Windows opens up Google Chrome straightaway with the webpage. How do I halt this, so that Windows stays focussed on Skype?

I like to click and open URL's — that counterparties on Skype message me — straightaway in my browser, to remind me to read them after I finish Skyping. Unquestionably, it's unproductive to click one URL, then have Windows switch to Chrome — then I must minimize Chrome and return to Skype. Undeniably, I loathe repeating this with each URL messaged me.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

3 comment threads

x-post https://superuser.com/questions/1698118/how-can-i-halt-windows-from-forthwith-switching-to-goo... (1 comment)
Opening a browser when you click on a URL sounds like normal behavior. Do you mean you have a differe... (2 comments)
Do you generally want new windows to steal focus? (2 comments)
Post
+3
−3

This answer is to the question as originally asked, not what it was edited to several days after this answer was written.


How do I halt this, so that Windows stays focussed on Skype?

Don't click on the link! Clicking a link without any additional keys or unusual setup in just about any software since the late 1990s means "I want to see the document referenced by this link". If you want to stay in Skype instead of seeing the referenced document, then don't click.

This behavior is so universal, it's hard to imagine what you expected clicking the link to do.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

3 comment threads

Dangerous (15 comments)
Some systems like mac support cmd+click in many programs to open links in the background . (4 comments)
Mostly true, but... (1 comment)
Dangerous
TextKit‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

This fails to answer my question.

elgonzo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

"Dangerous" 🤣 🤣

This is indisputably the funniest thing i have ever seen on this site...

elgonzo‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

This fails to answer my question.

Lets not pretend otherwise, it only fails to answer your edited question -- an edit which came about three days after this answer was posted.

samcarter‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

TextKit‭ Can you please retract the "Dangerous" reaction? While it might be true that the answer does not solve your problem, there is no dangerous advice in it. Please limit the usage of this reaction to things that are actually dangerous.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

There's nothing dangerous about this. Please don't use that reaction for answers you don't like. If you don't think it answers your question, you can downvote or leave a comment explaining what you think is missing.

gmcgath‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

How is it dangerous not to click on a link?

TextKit‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Sorry. I hit the wrong flag. I meant the Outdated flag.

samcarter‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

@VLDR It is NOT outdated! Please don't abuse reactions like this. If you don't like an answer. As @Monica explained above, you can up- or downvote to show how satisfied you are with the quality of a post.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

TextKit‭ did you mark this answer "outdated" because you changed the question after it was posted to something that no longer fits? Editing a question to invalidate answers is bad form; going on to mark answers as "outdated" because of the edit is really bad form.

TextKit‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

Monica Cellio‭ There is no basis whatsoever for "bad form". How isn't my intended question obvious? I all ways intended to click URL's while using Skype. NOT clicking on URL's was out of question. From my questions, anyone can know that I know about NOT clicking on URL's — doubtless I am not asking about this! You are correct — I edited my question to clarify — but I have not changed the substance of my question.

TextKit‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

samcarter‭ It is unwarranted to use words like "abuse" here. I have not abused any thing. See my reply to Monica above pls.

samcarter‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

TextKit‭ In the context of a Q&A site an "outdated answer" refers to a solution that at the time of posting worked fine, but since then circumstances changed and the solution either no longer works or there are better solutions now available. Using this reaction for an answer which does not meet this specific criterium is abusing this reaction.

samcarter‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

@VLDR As you can see from comments like https://powerusers.codidact.com/comments/thread/5490#comment-15648 , there where a couple of different ways in which users interpreted the first version of the question. What might be a clear question for you, might not be clear for others. Embrace this and don't blame others for misunderstanding your question. You can avoid problems in which users answer to what they guess you mean, by reacting to comments which ask for clarification in a timely manner.

TextKit‭ wrote almost 3 years ago · edited almost 3 years ago

"don't blame others". I am not blaming others. I am just highlighting that the intent of my question has always been obvious, which Olin Lathrop's answer missed. If a user is uncertain about the intent of my question, then they can request clarification as comments, rather than construe it uncompassionately. What would you like me to do about the reaction?

samcarter‭ wrote almost 3 years ago

@VLDR The point is that while the intend of your question might have been obvious to you, it obviously was not for others. And from personal experience, it is very difficult to ask you something in comments. How many comments did it take before you reacted here? I think I had to comment under at least 3 of your other posts. About you reaction: I would like that you retract the "outdated" reaction. If the answer does not solve your problem, you can either just ignore it or downvote it, but "outdated" certainly does not apply to this post.