Does it bother you that it's not optimal? It doesn't bother the people who do it. I think breaking things on purpose just to stop a behavior that's not harmful is unwise.

Doesn't bother me, but it does seem to bother the people who come up with these lists. (I am slightly bothered, though, by people who click on a a link, and then click it again when it's "loading too slowly," thinking that they're hurrying it along instead of going back to the start of a new request.) The best solution in both cases would be for the browser to simply ignore any attempts to load a GET of URL X in a given frame/window/tab when it's already attempting to load the same GET of URL X in that frame/window/tab.

I click links again if it's been more than a few seconds. I know full well it starts a new request, but often that works faster than letting the old request time out and be re-sent.

> a behavior that's not harmful

. . . until someone double-orders something that costs $600.

Granted, but that would be a pretty awfully designed website, no?

Unfortunately, double-clicking a link when submitting a form (for instance) can double-submit it, which can be especially problematic when confirming an order and ending up getting charged twice.

If this is a real problem, perhaps browser makers should just ignore the second click?

That would be a wise "something else." :)