For a while I've noticed that if I view a question and then use browser "back" to go back to the question list whence I came, it sends me to the top of the page. That's a little annoying if I was most of the way down the page of questions; I have to page down to find where I left off. But I didn't raise it because it seemed minor in the grand scheme of things -- something I would have brought up eventually, but it didn't press me to write the meta question.
Just now, however, I was paging through questions (because I was away for a bit and missed a bunch of stuff), and ran into this variant of what I've described: I was on page 2 of the question list, viewed a question, used "back" -- and was back on the top of *page 1* again.
Is there anything we can do about this? By the way, I don't tend to use browser "back" if there's a convenient in-page affordance; I usually use the link in the page header to go back to the main page. But these are cases where I use "back" because there's some context, and I'd rather not lose that context.
Logged on Github:[^f1] "[Enhance internal site navigation #29][g]"
Like OP, I "don't tend to use browser 'back' if there's a convenient in-page affordance". At present, especially with the tweaked topbar, there is no smooth "in-page affordance", so it strikes me there are three elements here:
- provide clean, quick inner-community links ("in-page affordance") when in the context of a specific Q&A;
- keep top-level nav between communities accessible (this seems already to be well under development with the upper-left logo/dropdown); and
- ensure use of the browser's "back" function remains inuitive (e.g., takes you back to previous context, especially when the "previous" page was a Summary Page where `page_number > 1`).
There is probably an element of growing familiar with a new interface: the wee chat/Q&A icons in the upper-right side bar of summary and Q&A pages are very handy, but not somewhere I yet look to "naturally" for navigating around the site. Yet.
[^f1]: I reckoned 10 stars was adequate response to suggest the presence of this matter on Github was warranted. Hope that was judged rightly!