Public Outcry Over Popup Ads

JCMay writes: "FoxNews is reporting that more and more people are growing tired of so-called "pop-under" ads. Most fascinating I think is the comparison between these ads and gangland street violence: "They?'re like drive-by shootings," said Kipp Cheng, interactive news editor at Adweek. "Consumers will not put up with that." To FoxNews' credit, they even mention ways people can control pop-up ads, including a link to one of the worst offenders, offering a way to shut up those X-10 ads, even if for only a month." Fortunately, Konqueror allows you to disable popups with a single checkbox.

Comments

More than 30 days hack?

[Eagle7]

The link for the opt out is:
http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=30&PAGE=htt p://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

I wonder if changing the DAY= value will actually work... looking at the resulting cookie didn't tell me much, but I've never actually used cookies, so I am not familiar with the format.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like you found it too....i'll find out in 30000 days ;)

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Anonymous Cowdog]

I have this link on my home page (which is a file:// link on my local hard disk, not a public home page).

Heh, back in the dot-com era, you could have gotten venture capital funding for a business model where the sole functionality of your site was as a portal to opt-out links like this.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Apparently it does. I tried DAY=365, and even though the resulting display page said 30 days, the cookie doesn't expire for one year...

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[stilwebm]

Maybe not VC funds, but you could have sold banner ads at the top for $1,400/month, and made enough money before the ad price crash to seed a real startup.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Randy Rathbun]

Yep... it does work. I set it for 3000 days and it expires in 2009.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Oh, so simple. I resorted to editing my cookies.txt file to increase the expirey to 2006. Well as long as the end result is the same...

--

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[bbh]

I guess the only problem is that X10 actually has to honor their own cookies. If they start noticing a bunch of cookies that have values greater than 30 days then they might just consider it invalid or issue another cookie and everyone will have to put up with those "pop-under" adds again. Then again, maybe they will get smart and just get rid of the pop-under ad alltogether... or maybe not...

bbh

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[addaon]

It does. Change it to 300 or so and forget about it, if they keep up these tactics they'll be out of business by then.

On the other hand, 'opt-out' is kind of misleading. The way it works is that their window opens, sees the cookie, and then closes. So you still have all the irritation of the ads, it's just that by the time your mouse gets to the corner to instinctively hit 'close', its already gone. More insidious than normal popups, if you ask me.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[um... Lucas]

Funny... that's the same thing i thought when i put my mouse over the link... i just changed mine to 180...

http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=180&PAGE= ht tp://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

(that's the value we're all talking about, by the way)

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[krogoth]

hopefully some dictator will have gotten tired of them and nuked them by then (because mine expires in 2k9 too... better add another 27000 days just to be safe)!
---

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[cicadia]

There is no way for them to see that you've changed the expiry date on your cookie.

When your browser requests a page from their site, it only sends the cookie name and value. The expiry date is never sent; it's only there to let your browser know when to delete the cookie.

There are ways for them to get around this (I haven't seen the cookie, so I don't know what's in it,) such as embedding the date-of-issue into the cookie value, but if the cookie format is just a string which says "Opt Out", then this hack should work for as long as their opt-out program is in place.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[room101]

Ah, but since we are passing in "DAY=3000", they can see what the date is. Thus, when they start seeing stuff like "DAY=3000", they might start wondering....

Of course, like most things in administration, you have to know to look at stuff like that in your logs. Will they ever think of it? Hope not.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[kilgore_47]

The problem with the x10 opt-out is that the window still opens. It just closes itself right after loading for a sec. In windows, I didn't even notice this. My mac at work, however, doesn't do pop-under ads properly (they don't do the under part, but they still pop just fine...) and I usually close them in annoyance before the script checks the cookie and gets rid of it for me.

___

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[corbettw]

"Ah, but since we are passing in "DAY=3000", they can see what the date is. Thus, when they start seeing stuff like "DAY=3000", they might start wondering.... "

Then just edit your cookies file manually, increasing the expiration date to something absurd (like June, 2034). Duh.

Cory

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[theblackdeer]

no, x10.com doesnt care about the time its disabled. if you can't tell from the look/feel of the web site, it's all about selling, selling, selling. the reasing is that the people who will block the ad aren't going to buy a camera, so why care about how long it's blocked for? there are more than enough click-throughs on that ad to make it worth it.

the web / marketing dept there at x10 is not terribly advanced, and cookies are 'oooh, krazy technology' - they're using front page, and have a special person set up to fix formatting when they can't figure it out through the WYSIWYG interface. ick.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Tackhead]

> I guess the only problem is that X10 actually has to honor their own cookies. If they start noticing a bunch of cookies that have values greater than 30 days then they might just consider it invalid or issue another cookie and everyone will have to put up with those "pop-under" adds again. Then again, maybe they will get smart and just get rid of the pop-under ad alltogether... or maybe not...

This comment -- and the fact that other companies are going to start using the same technique -- is why I reject opt-out "cookie" solutions altogether.

The popup/under/banner/whatever ad-generating code is adversary code.

If you're going to jump through hoops to avoid these ads, might I point out that jumping through hoops to trust your adversary is a poor strategy. If you're going to jump through hoops, jump through hoops that will eliminate his ability to [ab]use your resources.

Option 1: Hack code to place a button on your menu bar (Mozilla, sorry about you IE users) that will toggle ALL Javashit on/off. You're usually only surfing one web site at a time, right? Click to turn it all on (your bank, your broker), click to turn it all off (X10, pr0n-hunting). I do this manually through the 2-3 menu-subtrees in Nutscrape 4, and I've found that I never miss Javashit, although it has the side effect of greatly reducing my tolerance for idiot webmasters that use Javashit buttons where a simple HREF would do. Thankfully, I don't go to many such sites on a regular basis.

Option 2: Find the location of the pop-under providers -- usually ad-servers like Doublefuck. Kill 'em in your HOSTS file on 'doze.

Option 3: Use a local proxy like Junkbuster or Proxomitron.

Bottom line: From a strategic perspective, it's stupid to use countermeasures that rely on either the integrity or negligence of your adversary, especially given the availability of other countermeasures that are not only more effective to begin with, but are (relatively speaking) immune from any action your adversary may take in the future.

The enemy can't run code on your box if you don't allow him to. And the enemy can't even deliver the damn payload (be it Javashit code, huge-azz Flash and .GIF banners, or Doublefuck tracking cookies) if you've blocked his ass at the firewall or proxy.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[rhiorg]

Perhaps webmasters should include this link to automatically run on visitors' machines (as a background process, remote script, etc?). That would be one way to make sure these ads are seen less. Or would that be denying X10's "freedom to irritate"? At least we could all post the link in a very conspicuous place on our pages...as a service to the web-browsing public. NOBODY likes these ads.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[SquadBoy]

Just use junkbuster to allow it to send cookies back but not accept any more cookies from them. You are using Junkbuster aren't you?

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Mynn]

I guess the only problem is that X10 actually has to honor their own cookies.

I did the X10 thing here at work, and again at home. Both systems are set up to accept cookies in the same way, with the same Settings for the browsers... however, I still get the ads at some sites (but not the original site I read about it on (abcnews.com about two weeks ago).

Anyone else have this problem?

-Mynn the Museless

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[guinsu]

How about sticking it in a 1 pixel IMG SRC on a page?

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[orpheus2k]

I read on Webmonkey that a guy who tried the URL hack has determined that despite successfully setting a longer-till-expiration cookie, the 'pop-unders' still happen.

He recommends Popup Killer for you Windows people.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[kirkb]

Problem is, I've seen web sites that *only* allow access via javascript-enabled browsers. If you create an easy way to turn javascript on/off, you'll end up seeing unscrupulous sites that refuse to run unless it's turned on. Sucks

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Windows 98 and IE. I added x10.com to my list of restricted sites in the Tools:InternetOptions:Security:RestrictedSites:Sit es. No more x10 popups.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[DJGreg]

Actually, Mozilla has some great features to deal with pop-up windows. This page goes over quite a few things that you can mess with that aren't available via the standard options dialog. Most notable is buried in the Other Useful Preferences section which discusses the user.js file. Within there are some great features to control when and what javascript is available to a page.. I personally love this feature.

This will help greatly with those websites that "require" that you have javascript enabled in order to view them, while also killing any javascript that you don't want to function..

Enjoy, and have fun.. ;)

-Greg

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[giveuptheghost]

apparently you can set DAY as high as 13345. any higher and it will expire at the end of your browsing session instead...

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[jazy]

blow it away in the hosts file:

127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com

my machine never even sends x10 traffic. fuggem

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[AntiNorm]

blow it away in the hosts file:
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com

Better yet: ipchains -A output -p tcp -d ads.x10.com -j REJECT

That way, your machine won't even try. It'll just think that ads.x10.com isn't accepting connections. If you want the outbound connections to be silently dropped, and not actively rejected (i.e. with ICMP connection refused packets), then s/REJECT/DENY

---

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[hedge49]

Try "Pow" from AnalogX @ AnalogX.com. Runs in systray and as long as it's on, one can opt-out pop-ups, or unders once, then never see them again.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[warpeightbot]

Option 1: Hack code to place a button on your menu bar (Mozilla, sorry about you IE users) that will toggle ALL Javashit on/off.

Or just use Galeon. Enable Java/script is right there on the Settings menu. And a few other handy things like user-defined toolbars, right-click on bookmarks, tabbed browsing a la Opera, and the ability to turn off those dreaded popups altogether. (You can also stuff'em into tabs if you use something that needs popups). Just don't forget to set your network prefs to HTTP 1.0 if you're Junkbusting.

just another satisfied user....

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[MoNickels]

You're usually only surfing one web site at a time, right?.

Umm, no. That would be tedious and unproductive. Even with a high-speed connection, I tend to open numerous bookmarks at a time, let them load in the background, wade through them one by one, opening almost all links from those pages in new windows, letting those windows load in the background as well. I'm done browsing when I hit the last open window. Turning off Javascript is not an option.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[grazzy]

popups are more than ads you know, you sacrifice a bit of the web disabling popups, and if you disable javascript you pretty much remove the whole idea by todays standard, but then again, you are using linux and probably doesnt care about usability :)

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[jpellino]

the phone rep is giving this address out with 1000 as the day value. by that time this will flop or x10 will go belly up.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Faust7]

It's a pity that this kind of had to be posted publicly; now X10 is just as aware as the rest of us and will probably prohibit such hacks.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Black Parrot]

> Option 1: Hack code to place a button on your menu bar (Mozilla, sorry about you IE users) that will toggle ALL Javashit on/off.

Galeon has per-site authorization for cookies and images. With the proper preferences set, the first time a site wants to set a cookie or download an image you get a prompt asking whether to allow it, and there's a checkbox on the prompt so you can mark "remember this decision". There is also an editor that lets you look at your saved decisions, and change them if you need to.

Eventually there will be a similar feature for site-specific control of Javascript, Flash, and any other conceptually cool technology that webmasters adopt for in-your-face advertising. (I know this claim is true, because if they don't do it within a year or so I'll go in and do it myself. Such is the true value of open-source applications.)

At any rate, this will give the functionality of the button you suggest, but it will simplify things by remembering your choices for you.

> I do this manually through the 2-3 menu-subtrees in Nutscrape 4, and I've found that I never miss Javashit, although it has the side effect of greatly reducing my tolerance for idiot webmasters that use Javashit buttons where a simple HREF would do. Thankfully, I don't go to many such sites on a regular basis.

Yeah, I browse without Javascript too. About once a week I have to turn it on for a legitimate use, but for the most part I don't need it, and I certainly don't miss it. (And BTW, sites that require Javascript almost never give an informative error message when you visit with JS disabled, because they assume everyone mindlessly leaves it on all the time.)

In addition to the "idiot webmasters" you mention, there is a growing number of "fascist webmasters" that won't let you access their content if you don't have Javascript and cookies enabled. Not like that's a big problem for me: there are almost 30,000,000 other Web sites I can visit instead. Commercial Web sites need to wise up on this. Think what it would do to a brick&mortar business if they frisked you, thumbprinted you, and made you watch a couple of ads on their TV every time you went in to do a bit of windowshopping.


--

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[AnarchoFreak_00]

You're usually only surfing one web site at a time, right?.

Umm, no. That would be tedious and unproductive. Even with a high-speed connection, I tend to open numerous bookmarks at a time, let them load in the background, wade through them one by one, opening almost all links from those pages in new windows, letting those windows load in the background as well. I'm done browsing when I hit the last open window.

Of course. everything2.com is the ultimate test in multi browsing skills. I seem to open more windows than I close browsing that site.

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[sqlrob]

Huh? Did you even try it?

X10 is in my secure zone on my Doze box, and I have the cookie (~10 years worth) and I have some of the x10 sites in hosts. I still get the pop-under (granted, it's always "host not found")

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Dwonis]

No kidding! There's a reason why the Linux version of Netscape has the middle button bound to `Open Link in New Window'.
------

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[Dwonis]

For Linux 2.4 users:

iptables -A OUTPUT -d ads.x10.com -p tcp --dport 80 -j REJECT

You'll need the appropriate netfilter capabilities compiled into your kernel.

------

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[SimCash]

First, it seems to me that any of us could quickly write a code and sleep it on a 28-day cycle to update the cookie file to make it seem like we had just re-visited the "no pup-under" page. This avoids the 365-days is too long, I'll ignore my own cookie counter-tactic."

Now, a question, how should a site announce it will be using pop-ups as a navigation tactic? For example, I am designing a site that uses a simple javascript pop-up to aid in user navigation - not popping up ads, but rather on-demand as a way to keep the reader grounded in the core of the site while providing little "footnote" like popups. I hate the "click here for pop-up definition" style of web page (they are soooo redundant).

Re:More than 30 days hack?

[jeffy124]

Click here for 99,999 days of no pop-under X10 cameras.

Some popups are good

[xhorder]

While Konqueror does allow you to disable ALL popups, are there any linux utilities that only disable unwanted popups, leaving requested popups (e.g. Clicktv program listings) alone? Kind of like PopOff for Windows.

Re:Some popups are good

[Hop-Frog]

Mozilla allows this. Check out the release notes on the latest version. It's through JavaScript, but it's easy to see what to do. I just blocked all of them, though.

--Kevin

Re:Some popups are good

[JHromadka]

OmniWeb, an OS X browser, does this. Its Javascript options include disabling popups except when clicked.

Omniweb kicks ass anyway. I love how it spellchecks while I'm typing in a webform.
------
James Hromadka

Re:Some popups are good

[BlowCat]

The problem with both Mozilla and Konqueror is that you cannot easily re-enable popups for certain links without reconfiguring the browser. Popups don't work even if I use "open in another window" in Konqueror.

Re:Some popups are good

[innocent_white_lamb]

Why don't you just set the popup window to 'ask'? ---> Because then you have to "answer".

"Open new window?"

Clicking on "no" takes the same effort as closing the window if you just let it open on its own. And you still get an annoying box; it just says "Open new window" instead of "Buy this".

Therefore, "ask" doesn't solve the problem. It just moves it, as it were....

Re:Some popups are good

[-tji]

Actually, it could solve the problem..

Instead of just saying yes/no, it could say:

Yes: Allow this popup Window Yes-All: Allow ALL popup windows from this domain No: Do not allow this popup Window No-All: Disallow ALL popup windows from this domain/address.

And, the other benefit is that the 'OnClose' popup windows don't keep popping up faster than you can close them.

Also, when a disabled site is trying to pop up a window, a small icon on the indicator bar on the bottom of the window would be nice. So, if I wanted to allow it, I could do it in real time.

More to come...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to see quite a few more of these in the very near future. My ad broker has infomed me that Orbitz.com, GetSmart Mortgage, ConsumerInfo, GetSmart Credit Card, and LowerMyBills are going to join the same campaigns. Someone should let these companies know that this sucks before they run with it...

Anonymous to protect my job...

Re:More to come...

[Xoro]

Too true! Unfortunately, the amount of interest generated (even negative) is a sign of their success rather than failure.

It's amazing how many people seem to think that generating customer goodwill is more important than generating sales. Take this absurd quote from the end of the article:

"The majority of people don't respond to direct-mail pieces and telemarketing," Cheng [interactive news editor at Adweek] said. "All this with the pop-up windows will eventually go away."

Huh?

Did "direct mail pieces and telemarketing" "eventually go away"?

Neither will these. More to come indeed.

Re:More to come...

[quintessent]

Someone should let these companies know that this sucks before they run with it...

I don't know if this will dissuade them. Look how well AOL is doing today, in spite of endless marketing insults to intelligence.

Be prepared to pay

[SaturnTim]

Hey, I hate these ad's as much as anybody, but I hate the alternative even more. If you disable the advertising on a given site, that site stops earning money from that advertising, and either turns into a pay site, or closes it's doors.

--ST

Re:Be prepared to pay

[Blue Aardvark House]

That might be true. What most people object to is way the ads are delivered. Popups and popdowns annoy because they open up extra windows. Banner ads suck precious bandwidth.

The least obtrusive form of ad is the text ad. They might be effective on sites with heavy hits.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you're right -- but that doesn't solve the problem. I ran a small public site for more than two years with no advertising and was scared off my ass of the site growing to a point where I couldn't bankroll it out-of-pocket.

Sure, dishing out 30,000 pages a month isn't expensive, but what happens if people en masse actually like my site and it grows to the size of K5 or Somethingawful? Then what? Advertising has been proven to be an utter failure on endless occasions and I found myself routinely hoping that the site didn't grow because there is currently no viable way of funding such a beast... how healthy of an attitude is that for a business owner (for lack of a better term)?

Re:Be prepared to pay

[Micah]

Well if nothing else you *should* be able to pay for your bandwidth with advertising.

If you pay a cent a meg of bandwidth (and you probably pay less if you run your own server), and you use mod_gzip, you can probably get 30-50 good sized HTML pages + some graphics (including a banner ad) in a meg. Certainly you can earn a cent per 30 pages, right?

If you can get a tenth of a cent per page, you're making a profit.

---

Re:Be prepared to pay

[MustardMan]

so, there will always be new pr0n sites to surf. If The Hun closes it's doors I always have Sublime Directory to fall back on. To answer the inevitable question, no I don't have anything to do with these sites. Yes, I do look at pr0n. I'm a geek. Deal.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I doubt that a few people disabling the advertising is going to put the web site out of business... Most people don't care about the advertisements or care but don't know how to get rid of them. So feel free to turn the advertisements off - there will be no repercussions.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[startled]

I'd much rather pay. A lot of sites are going to have to go to a pay model, even just a tiny amount to guarantee interested circulation-- and make more money off of ads.

There are some people, of course, who would rather not pay. Either broke, or they're teens and haven't grabbed RocketCash or somesuch yet. I appreciate the sites that give you a choice. ezboards, for example, allows you to pay to turn off all the ads, which I did. Whether or not the advertising market will ever generate enough revenue to truly support that is an open question.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[AxelBoldt]

If you disable the advertising on a given site, that site stops earning money from that advertising, and either turns into a pay site, or closes it's doors.

Correction: Only the sites that are in it for the profit will go down. Those sites typically suck anyway. Free sites by enthusiastic volunteers will always be around without advertising. The internet was created and run for 25 years by these people.

--

Re:Be prepared to pay

[bzcpcfj]

Ordinarily I get a little tired of "the Internet was meant to be free!!!" philosophies (reminds me too much of the hippies I went to school with), but this message hits the nail on the head.

The best sites over the years have been either:

1) Knowledgebase sites provided by companies that earned their money selling something real, then supporting it on the web (via gopher in the olden days).

2) Special interest stuff that someone is really interesting in sharing with everyone.

I don't have a thing in the world against a .com making a buck, but do it by providing some value. Either sell me something I need or want(fatbrain.com) or provide a presence when I'm on the computer and not able to use the regular source (The Weather Channel, CNN). In either case, don't wear me out with endless ads from other people that take forever to load (or lock the system because doubleclick's server is down).

The web is a mess because of this endless and essentially useless advertising. I took a hint from the article and downloaded Adsubtract (free for home use). It seems to work nicely so far (although, in some cases, the additional browser opens; it's blank, however). Load speed on The Weather Channel and Intellicast really improved. And the pages looked sooooo much better without all those banners stuck all over the place.

Yeah, I could live with the web the way it was.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[akintayo]

Ads are supposed to be obstrusive, aren't television and print adds obstrusive.

Plus the x10 ads are quite effective, i am actually taking the time to refer to a product that is close to a decade old. x10 has not had this much play since radio shack carried them

Re:Be prepared to pay

[llywrch]

> Hey, I hate these ad's as much as anybody, but I hate the alternative even more.

But the alternative is not only ``pay sites".

Let me admit something: X10 has what appears to be a cool product. Something that I'll admit I would probably buy. However it is an example of a good idea that is being killed by their marketroids.

I've looked at their site a couple of times, but it is so packed with ads & over-sized jpegs that I can't easily find answers to my questions. (One of which is ``how much for a trial kit?" And what would I get for my money?) All of these garish ads are merely reinforcing my disinclination NOT to visit their lousy site.

Which is the long & short of this issue: build a web site that easily provides the information your customers want, & keep your ads simple. If the product looks interesting, I'm happy to take a moment, click on it, & see where it leads. But if the ad is the computer equivalent of grabbing me by my lapels & scremaing in the face, then I'll feel obliged to give the company the computer equivalent of kicking 'em in the groin in order to continue with my life.

Geoff

Re:Be prepared to pay

[sedawkgrep]

I'm sorry, but you're so off-base with this, its not even funny.

Enthusiast sites can exist without funding...until they grow large enough to demand high-speed links, load-balancers, etc etc etc. This stuff is extremely NOT CHEAP.

Back before the inet was commercial, the government paid the costs for every US organization that was connected, save just a few. UUCP, or gopher, or veronica, or archie, bbs's, or just simple e-mail was all you typically had. These were extremely low-bandwidth and suited the hundreds or perhaps thousands of transactions per day they served.

I wonder how many hits slashdot gets in a day? I don't know...but I am confident that no person could host slashdot at their house. ;-)

So before you go off on your misguided rant, think about the sites you visit, and whether or not they are hosted on a single PC at somebody's house, or are actually architected across several platforms and hosted at a co-lo, complete with fast links, high-availability, conditioned power, etc etc etc. Every significant site I visit fits this category.

If a site isn't sponsored, they have to either earn money from advertising, or subscription.

Yes, it sucks. Its doubtful I'd pay much money to keep sites alive. I'd probably pay $1/month. But if slashdot, for instance got 100k users (about 20% reg'd users, right?) to pay $1/month, that would be a monthly revenue of...yup, $100,000. Just a thought.

sedawkgrep

Re:Be prepared to pay

[MousePotato]

That damned Weather Channel site just started using the Pop up ads. Nice to know; the NOAA sites were already paid for by our tax dollars, zero ads and really useful data.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[Black Parrot]

> If you disable the advertising on a given site, that site stops earning money from that advertising, and either turns into a pay site, or closes it's doors.

Let's make a fine distinction between "content sites" and "commercial sites".

Sure, lots of content sites need ads to survive, just like newspapers and magazines. But they don't need to be obnoxious about it. If the ratio of obnoxiosity:value-of-content grows too high, they'll lose visitors. (We all vary in sensitivity to Web gimmicks -- or in the bandwidth to download them -- so they've got plenty of trade-off room to maneuver in.)

As for commercial sites... Why should they bother you with ads at all? You're there of your own free will, and if you want more info you can "ask a salesman" by clicking a link to more details.

Businesses, for the most part, have been incredibly st00pid about the Web. They should be delighted at the opportunity to expand their storefront for a billion people to see. Instead, they tend to see it as a contest for "who can generate the most annoyingly in-your-face ads?", or as a gold mine for harvesting customer info to sell to someone else.

--

Re:Be prepared to pay

[stephend]

One interesting thing we found while developing a large UK web site was that popups don't work quite as you might expect.

The site wanted to get more people to take out finance and decided (against our recomendations) to use popups. While they *did* get more people applying for finance, they also had a huge increase in the number of people rejected for the same!

Sounds like only those people who are already desparate for your service will actually use the popups, while at the same time you risk alienating a good percentage of "good" customers.

Re:Be prepared to pay

[Dwonis]

Enthusiast sites can exist without funding...until they grow large enough to demand high-speed links, load-balancers, etc etc etc. This stuff is extremely NOT CHEAP.

Once IPv6 gets adopted, this won't be a problem, since multicast is a mandatory part of the standard.

------

Re:Be prepared to pay

[The Mgt]

Turning into a pay site IS closing your doors. It may pay for the bandwidth but how many people will be reading the content ?

Well...

[Violet Null]

For Win32, all you need is regex knowledge and The Proxomitron.

Re:Well...

[Blue Aardvark House]

Yes, we know about them, but due to the annoying aspect of the ads, a portion of the audience will disregard them for being annoying. I will not buy from them and there are many here who would probably agree.

Re:Well...

[RAruler]

Everytime someone talks about ads, or ad-blocking software you have three groups.

A)Hardcore users that configure host files to block
B) Unix users that use Junkbusters
C) Windows users that use Proxomitron

It's kind of interesting. I'm a proxomitron user myself, works good.. has problems with Hotmail though.

---

Re:Well...

[Violet Null]

'Tis true...though I thought Junkbusters worked for Win32 as well.

I don't actually use Proxomitron anymore -- wrote my own proxy as a learning exercise a year or so back -- but yeah, that's an interesting point.

Re:Well...

[pete_p]

Well, I use Guidescope which is basically Junkbuster with a nice interface and an autoupdating block list. Proxomitron crashes my machine too often.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a conversation with yourself?
Multiple personalities is no laughing matter.

Get Help.

Moderators, before you come after me, notice that he did respond to his own post with a contradictive reply

Re:Well...

[AxelBoldt]

Or use WebWasher, from Siemens no less. Runs on Linux and Windows and is free as in beer. I have never seen an X10 ad, or a Slashdot banner ad for that matter. You don't need to know regexps to use it.

--

Re:Well...

[bzbb]

Then you have people like me, who decided that one or the other wasn't enough, and after reading junkbusters chaining rules, chained junkbuster to proxymotron. this works well.

Java and Javascript

[proclus]

Here is the solution: Turn them off.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Re:Java and Javascript

[Rick the Red]

Here is the solution: Turn them off.

OK, so does anyone make a browser with a simple button that turns Javascript on and off? And another that turns Java on and off? And yet another that turns ActiveX on and off? MSIE can't turn them on and off individually, and they make it very hard to do that. Netscape 3 allowed us to turn them on and off window by window, but now (Netscape 4 and above) all instances of Netscape share the same process, so turn Javascript on in one window and you've turned it on in all of them (also, you crash one and all the others crash too, but that's another gripe). And even then you have to drill down through the menus and dialog boxes to do it.

Why won't at least one browser let the users decide how they want the browser to behave? Why do they all have this arrogant attitude that they know what's best for us? Pick a browser: for every "feature" they cite as an example of why their browser is best, I can cite five reasons why their browser is crap*. They all suck**.

* Slight exaggeration for dramatic effect.
** Severe understatement to avoid offending minors.

Re:Java and Javascript

[MrGrendel]

Konqueror allows you to not only turn Java and Javascript on and off (individually), but you can set it up the behavior on a site-by-site basis, if that's what you want to do. You can also explicately turn off just the popup boxes and leave the rest of Java alone.

Re:Java and Javascript

[Logic Bomb]

As has been mentioned in other comments to this story, iCab for Macintosh does such things. There is a top-level menu item that turns JavaScript on and off. If someone emailed the authors requesting it, one would probably be added for Java. One can certainly filter JavaScript by site... and not just whether it's on or off, but which of like seven specific things ("open new windows", "access referrer", "access history") scripts can do... for each and every site one adds to the filter. Good software does exist.

Re:Java and Javascript

[Rick the Red]

Teriffic! Do you think the boss would notice if I ran Linux/Konqueror in a VM window on this Windoze box? :-)

Does Konqueror have a simple button to do that, or do I have to drill down through several menus? What I want is a browser where the default is all crap (Java, cookies, style sheets, Shockwave plug-ins, etc.) OFF (call it Lynx mode) unless I push a button to turn it on for this site only. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for this window only is good enough. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for all windows is better than nothing.

I suppose I could get Konqueror and hack the code myself, but right now I now have more money than time and I'm willing to buy a commercial product if anyone's willing to code what I want. Meanwhile, I'll stick to the free ones and bitch :-)

Re:Java and Javascript

[Rick the Red]

I got tired of always saying "NO". When I encounter a web site where the site is unuseable without Javascript I want to simply press a button and have the web page (i.e., the Javascript) work. I don't want to have to re-load the page. I don't want to have to say "NO" 99% of the time. I just want a simple "Javascript" button for the 1%.

I also want this user-controlled functionality for cookies, style sheets, plug-ins, etc. It's too much to ask, I know. Just like it's too much to ask for a car with an oil pressure gage. My car's computer tells me when to change the oil; I have no need to see the oil pressure. My browser tells me when to view a pop-up window; I have no need to enable or disable it. Guess what? My money is spent on games and new hardware; I have no need to buy a web browser that does what I want.

Re:Java and Javascript

[jerrytcow]

If you're using windows, try atguard. it lets you block/allow cookies, javascript, java applets, activex, and ads from user defined sites.

Re:Java and Javascript

[blkros]

You can do this in Opera..except for activeX.

Re:Java and Javascript

[jonathan_ingram]

Does Konqueror have a simple button to do that, or do I have to drill down through several menus?

Well, if you install the kdeaddons package (this is with KDE 2.2, currently in beta), you get a drop down menu which lets you select the state of various features instantly. This includes cookies, Java, Javascript, image loading. That's generally good enough.

Re:Java and Javascript

[mrgoat]

In Konqueror browser, from the Menu Bar:

Settings > Configure Konqueror

Opens config window:

Select "Konqueror Browser", then Javascript tab.

Check off "Disable window.open()". Hit apply, done.

Its easy, my mom could do it. You can also filter your site preferences by host & domain, or enable java or javascript globally. It also has a filterlist for cookies, which is a great way of filtering out adservers in the first place.



mrgoat

Re:Java and Javascript

[kjr71]

Well, if you install the kdeaddons package (this is with KDE 2.2, currently in beta), you get a drop down menu which lets you select the state of various features instantly. This includes cookies, Java, Javascript, image loading. That's generally good enough.

This is definitely very sweet... =8-) One more thing I'd love to see in this menu would be the "Use proxy" option, sometimes my junkbuster config is a tad too aggressive...

YAY!!! LET US ALL REJOICE

[phunhippy]

I think i speak for everyone when the most annoying thing in the world these days(other than hearing isreal and arafat fighting over who shot who first) is the freaking X10 adds on nearly every web site!!! i'm so happy to turn em off finally and still have my pop up windows for sites with useful popup windown stuff :)

Many ways to block ads

[crow]

There are many ways of blocking ads.

You can use a filtering proxy, like Junkbuster. Unfortunately, I find that Junkbuster slows down my connections too much, and doesn't forward error messages correctly, so it's not 100% transparent.

My favorite solution is to use /etc/hosts to list all the known ad servers and direct them to 127.0.0.1. I then run a webserver on my local box with the not-found error set to redirect to a transparent image. (I use IP aliasing on the loopback device for sites that use direct IP numbers for their ad servers.) This works for most sites, though some (like slashdot) serve ads off the same server that serves regular images.

Using the /etc/hosts method, I occasionally look through my cookies file and find indications of sites that need to be added. It's not perfect, but I'm satisfied with it.

Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).

Of course, the issue here is pop-up ads, which should be blocked by having browsers reject requests to open new windows that aren't in response to a mouse click.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Masem]

Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).

The 1x1 gif is a valid, though questionable, way of doing some basic page layout, since you can easily scale it using just HEIGHT and WIDTH tags. (Mind you, I know that you're talking about blocking done when the HTML stream reports HEIGHT & WIDTH both equal to 1).

A better solution for images is to prevent resources located on a different network from being used. For example, if at amazon.com, I'd expect that "ad.amazon.com" would be on the same network, but not "ad.x10.com". This would prevent the typical 1x1 gif trick from being used.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Sarcasmooo!]

I guess the etc/hosts thing is for Linux? Windows users can use a hosts file also, but it goes in the windows folder and the name has to be "hosts" with no extension. (check the link for all the info).

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Snowfox]

Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).

Time for another link to WebWasher. It's now available for Linux and Mac, as well as Windows. It's free for private use - and it's so damned nice that it's the only program I run on my home machine that doesn't come with source.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Sarcasmooo!]

One more thing, because I assume by 1x1 images you mean , right? If you block the server the bug is on, the actual .gif file won't be saved to your drive (under temporary internet files in Windows).

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Troodon]

Muffin is a java proxy, quite flexible in blocking, stripping out certain tags etc. Configuration is pretty straight forward with a little fiddling. The blurb from the site:

Written entirely in Java. Requires JDK 1.1

Runs on Unix, Windows 95/NT, and Macintosh.

Freely available under the GNU General Public License.

Support for HTTP/0.9, HTTP/1.0, HTTP/1.1, and SSL (https).

Graphical user interface and command-line interface.

Remote admin interface using HTML forms.

Includes several filters which can remove cookies, kill GIF animations, remove advertisements,add/remove/modify arbitrary HTML tags (like blink), remove Java applets and Javascript,user-agent spoofing, rewrite URLs, and much more.

View all HTTP headers to aid in CGI development and debugging.

Users can write their own filters in Java using the provided filter interfaces.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[Sarcasmooo!]

Oops

I swear I clicked the preview button.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[ErikTheRed]

Unless you're running WinNT/2k/XP, in which case the file is:

%SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

%systemRoot% is C:\WINNT by default.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[why-is-it]

"Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1)"

Try WebWasher. It (in part) by blocking images images that match certain dimensions including web-bugs. The program is free to home users, and there is a Linux version. They used to be located at http://www.webwasher.com, but the site seems to be down...

Re:Many ways to block ads

[jdavidb]

I read somewhere that Tom Christiansen (Perl author and trainer) only looks at the Internet through a carefully written Perl proxy, and only with images, applets, etc. turned off. That's they ideal way to block ads: have Perl rewrite the webpages before your browser ever sees them to completely remove the links to the ads.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[sampson]

i don't have mod points or else i'd mod you up. i've installed most ad-filters and web washer is BY FAR the best. installation/configuration took me about 3 minutes (i'm being generous), and it does much more than just ad-blocking. no javascript popups, blocking by image size, all that. and it's free for non-commercial use.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[kraf]

I read somewhere that Tom Christiansen (anal retentive sociopath) only looks at the world wide web by telnetting to port 80 on target servers. That's the ideal way to block all the heathen non-perl content: look at the source of the cgi scripts directly.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[paulm]

I understand why you would not want those anoying popup ads.

What I don't understand is with banner ads, especially on a niche site like slashdot, aren't the banner ads somewhat likely to contain info about things you might want?

If a company spends a lot of time and effort making something that they really believe you would like, what do you suggest they do to let you know about it?

Nothing? Think about all of the things you have purchased. Do you really believe that you have done all of your own research and fully cogitated on the pluses and minuses of all the competition?

Really, it's just a banner ad. You have to scroll down to read this far anway. If the ad holds no interest for you, you've already forgotten it.

I'd like for sites like slashdot to get paid so they can buy more bandwidth/servers/routers (and contractors to fix them!) so that I can get more out of it.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[sohp]

I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1)

In Mozilla, in your personal profile directory is a subdirectory named chrome. In it is a file name userContent.css. Add the following lines:

IMG[height="1"][width="1"], IMG[height="1"][width="1"] {display: none !important;}

Re:Many ways to block ads

[AxelBoldt]

If a company spends a lot of time and effort making something that they really believe you would like, what do you suggest they do to let you know about it?

They should create a web site. If I ever need their product, I will find it through google.

Think about all of the things you have purchased. Do you really believe that you have done all of your own research and fully cogitated on the pluses and minuses of all the competition?

Certainly not. And I hate it when I catch myself buying something without first having identified a need and then researched the available products. Because it means that the advertisers have won with their subliminal messages.

Capitalims is based on the assumption that the best product wins in a Darwinian manner, not the best advertised product. So advertising is actually counterproductive: it just increases cost but doesn't create value.

Furthermore, the whole purpose of an economy is to satisfy the material needs of a population, and not to artificially create those needs.

--

Re:Many ways to block ads

[paulm]

They should create a web site. If I ever need their product, I will find it through google.

Are you saying that you only spend money on things you need? You are mighty unusual.

Capitalims is based on the assumption that the best product wins in a Darwinian manner, not the best advertised product.

No it isn't. Capitalism is built on the assumption that the best corporation wins in a Darwinian manner. This includes advertising.

Re:Many ways to block ads

[AxelBoldt]

There's nothing about corporations in Adam Smith. Besides, society is not interested in good corporations; it is interested in good products.

--

Re:Many ways to block ads

[babbage]

I use almost the same trick -- the WinNT hosts file (c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on my work computer, may vary slightly for other versions) maps identified ad servers to localhost, and a local Apache server handles all the newly broken hits.

One slight twist though -- rather than serving up an image, I have a 404 handler that dumps all the environment variables, starting with the "server name". As a result, rather than the ad, I get an ad-shaped message indicating, among other things, who was trying to serve the ad & what the referrer was (other data is usually truncated, but that's okay).

It's nice to see those little message -- ooh, Doubleclick was blocked out again... :)

IP Filtering to the rescue!

[ijx]

My solution: filter out the ad providers, on the network level. While this doesn't remove the actual pop-up, it doesn't require me to load random free/shareware on my computer.

I simply filter out connections from the big ad companies. A simple ipf/ipfw/pf filter will do the trick.

adfarm.mediaplex.com
*.doubleclick.com
etc.

Red X's are at least a little more pleasant.

Re:IP Filtering to the rescue!

[RedX]

Red X's are at least a little more pleasant

I'll take that as a compliment ;-)

Just disable JavaScript

[DerFeuervogel]

JavaScript is useless for what I do with myt browser so I just tuen it off. This kills pop-over/under/beside.

Re:Just disable JavaScript

[treke]

Not useless for Netscape 4 users though. Quite a bit of CSS support in netscape is dependand on Javascript enabled. Just try turning off js support and see the difference.

Violent Adverts?

[al3x]

It intrigues me that, while millions put up with television and radio advertising that literally dictates the content they can consume, it takes a frontier like the web to awaken them to the annoyance (some say "evil") that is advertising. But what do you expect if you browse the corporate web? Consumers demanding ad-free content from corporations may be living a nice dream, but if corps catch on that popups won't sell, then we'll see something else, like those ghastly flash-based quarter-page ads that appear on News.com. the short-term solution: use a good popup killer, or a browser with that feature integrated. long-term: don't browse corporate sites, or patronize corporate media. send a message that advertising doesn't sell, and that your mental space isn't for sale.

you won't, though *grin*

Re:Violent Adverts?

[DerFeuervogel]

It intrigues me that, while millions put up with television and radio advertising that literally dictates the content they can consume, it takes a frontier like the web to awaken them to the annoyance (some say "evil") that is advertising.

Um, ever heard of PBS :^) ?

That is the only thing worth watching on TV anyway, besides the Simspons (the commercials during the Sippsons are annoying but just to hear a good Homer quote is worth it!). "Honey do you mind opening the window. The cops have daddy's prints on file"

Or some such.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[cliffiecee]

Y'know, maybe it's me but I don't mind the Flash Ads. I actually will click on them- perhaps because I'm interested in seeing what they've done with Flash, but mostly because I find it less intrusive than a link that will take me away from the page I'm reading.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[tonywong]

I think there is a difference between the mediums. When one is browsing on the web, it is an active task, ie. focussed and directional. Advertising in a pop-up is perceived as an interruption to the task, which is highly annoying.

Radio and television are more passive tasks, as well as pre-programmed. People are not as peeved when advertising appears on television because they know or expect when the advert will appear, ie. after the introduction and before the climax, etc. This allows them to tune out any advertising or gives them an opportunity to go to the washroom or kitchen.

None of this is based on any proof or evidence, but it's just the way I've seen things.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between TV ads and web pop-ups:

1. TV ads can be entertaining. Pop ups never are.
2. TV ads are over eventually. Pop ups stick around.
3. TV ads do not consume resources on my TV. Pop ups do consume resources on my machine.
4. TV ads do not require me to do anything different. I am sitting watching TV, an ad comes on, I watch that, the TV program comes back. Pop ups interfere with the website I am trying to read, and I have to manually make them go away.

I have less of a problem with the news.com flash style ads, other than they make scrolling very slow. If they fixed that, I could ignore them just as easily as I ignore banner ads.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[Saeger]

I've hated advertising for as long as I can remember; it didn't take the subversion of the net for me to realize how evil paid-for deception is.

Some people actually like to think of marketing as providing a valuable service in notifying them of exciting new products and services!......and it usually turns out that I don't like those types of people either, for other reasons related to that mindset.

All advertising also requires that it pass along its cost, adding a premium to whatever is being sold (often in spite of the economies of scale) -- it's a lazy tax worth avoiding for both the dollar AND mental savings.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[thrig]

Even PBS is showing ads now, between shows.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[Saeger]

Well, thankfully your happy-happy receptive-consumer-brain will still be around to subsidize my mental indepence then, eh?

Thanks for volunteering for propaganda input!

Re:Violent Adverts?

[DerFeuervogel]

Even PBS is showing ads now, between shows.

Agreed. But it is a dignified everybody in and out in a matter of a minute or two, and if the show is an hour long that is bearable.

It's the commercial every 6-8 minutes on the commercial channels that makes me want to throw a brick at the TV.

Re:Violent Adverts?

[chez69]

anyone else sick of: I Speak atlantian!

damn mcdonalds ads....

Re:Violent Adverts?

[Voltaire99]

Well, yes.

Ever heard of their bloody fundraisers :^)?

KeenSpot/Space bans popup ads

[strredwolf]

KeenSpot Enterntainment bans popup ads on it's KeenSpot and KeenSpace networks, and encourages reporting popup ads on it's forums. It's always been their policy to thwap advertizers who want to use popup ads. It looks like they were ahead of the times in this respect.

--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";

I would like to thank X10

[chrysrobyn]

I had apparently forgotten to turn Java and Javascript off when I recently installed Mozilla. Thankfully, X10 was right there to remind me to take care of that oversight. Sincerely, A Former X10 Customer

Re:I would like to thank X10

[stevew]

The most recent version of Mozilla has a method for dis-allowing the pop-up adverts (0.92mozilla I think) and they even tell you what it is in the release notes! I just added a line from there to the prefs.js file, and no more pop-ups!

Re:I would like to thank X10

[chrysrobyn]

Not only didn't I hack up prefs.js to add those customizations, but I didn't even read the release notes when I installed 0.92! Know why? I wanted the browser to work, and turning Java and Javascript off is fast and doesn't disable anything I like. These arguments are for another time and place-- like on Bugzilla. OB Ontopic: X10 has some neat gadgets, but a man ust take his stand somewhere. I've tossed a respectable amount of money at them for their home automation hardware and enjoyed the product-- once I realized that even their appliance modules can't control a fluorescent light in normal use for more than 8 months. One time you turn it on, it'll have been fried. I lost two fluorescent lights within 2 weeks of each other-- the only two in my house on X10 appliance modules-- and none of my other fluorescent lights were harmed. If you keep that restriction in mind, there are still lots of interesting things you can do, but nothing in my house that justifies the price. To answer the question from your .sig, no I didn't compile my kernel today, I did that last Sunday. I did just compile the latest version of Wine though. I found out last month that I can use Quicken with a minimum of bugs.

What limits?

[www.sorehands.com]

What limits should be on ads?

Not allow banner ads?

Not allow pop-overs?

Not allow pop unders?

Not allow ads that keep up by trapping the on-close?

How and who should make these determinations? We have to ask for which limits apply. And then browsers will ad filters for these.

Hum...

[Sarcasmooo!]

Why no link to this "Konqueror" thing? Anyway, I always have active scripting and 'paste operations via script' disabled. One or the other (or both) keeps pop-ups from......uhhhhh, popping up. It very rarely causes any problems with websites, as far as I can see. I'm no expert on this stuff, though. If I ever get any problems, it takes about 5 seconds to enable it again. Or I can add the site to the trusted list and my paranoid security settings won't affect it.

Re:Hum...

[Troodon]

Konqueror is the KDE web browser/file manager.

Possible Solution?

[bay43270]

Maybe someone should write a program, which suppresses all popups except the ones the user wants. The program wouldn't know which popups were good, so it could just prompt the user with... a dialog.
-----

Re:Possible Solution?

[masoncooper]

Or how about this, instead of any sort of prompting, have a small icon flash in the status bar of the browser. If you want to release the pop-ups, click the icon and they'll pop up, otherwise just ignore them and continue to the next site. That way sites that require a pop-up to start a download don't get messed up.

Re:Possible Solution?

[bay43270]

I was just joking. Konqueror doesn't really pop up a dialog to ask if you want to see another dialog does it?
-----

yahoo! has pop ups now?

[Adler]

i opened up to yahoo this morning and had an X-10 ad pop-up on me. I like yahoo because i can see the top news stories and search with google all on one page, If only google would add a little box on the front page with the headlines, i'd be set. plus! no pop-ups.

Re:yahoo! has pop ups now?

[JohnG]

Yep, I noticed the same thing. I had quit using altavista because of it. I don't want to stop using Yahoo for the same reasons you cited, but those X10 ads are WAY to annoying. I don't mind popup ads ala Angelfire and such so much, because they are small and easily closable, but having these huge massive x10 popups open and then sneak under my browser is annoying. I know some people fine pop-under ads to be less annoying, but I don't. I want to be able to close it when it opens, not have to switch to the window, let it's massive size cover up what I'm reading then close it. I just see no need in wasting my limited bandwidth (I'm on dialup) downloading their graphics intensive ads.
As a direct result of that I will NEVER buy something from X10. I don't care how good their products are, pissing someone off isn't the best way to get their money.

Re:yahoo! has pop ups now?

[Christianfreak]

Create your own site. It shouldn't be too hard to find a site that exports the headlines (/. does it, look in the FAQ) and you can add a google search to it by clicking this link http://www.google.com/services/
You can even customize google's output to match your own site.
Voila! No more popups!

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:yahoo! has pop ups now?

[sulli]

yeah, guess they're desperate for revenue

Re:yahoo! has pop ups now?

[ackthpt]

yeah, guess they're desperate for revenue

Yeah, after they backed out of the lucrative pr0n market, they've had to turn to this kind of thing [pop-up adds] you wouldn't even want your own mother to know that you do.

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

Ads suck

[mholve]

I don't put up with ANY of them.

Junkbuster, baby. :)

more permenent solution

[sommere]

just go in your /etc/hosts file and add ads.x10.com to the end of the line that starts with 127.0.0.1
so it should read
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost ads.x10.com

This will block the adds forever (unless your computer is ads.x10.com.....)

---

Re:more permenent solution

[Vrallis]

This will block the adds forever (unless your computer is ads.x10.com.....)

In which case, you just do a quick "killall -9 httpd" and do the world a great favor.

Yes, this will probably work...they're running Apache over FreeBSD.

From the Horses mouth

[cbowland]

Q: Can you turn your ads off so I never see them again?

A: Click Here! This link will prevent your computer from having the X10 "pop-under" ads appear for the next 30 days! You must make sure you have your cookies enabled, for this link will give your computer a cookie that will disallow X10 pop-under ads from appearing on your computer as you "surf" the Internet. If you clear or delete your cookies, then it will be possible for X10's pop-under ads to appear on your machine. If you don't know what a "cookie" is, then you're probably set and don't have to worry about it - just click this link to remove the ads!
A. Other: if you disable JavaScript in your browser the ads will not open, though this may prevent you from seeing some things you want to see. Ad-blocking software will also help with this problem.

I love that the call their own business a "problem"!

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Re:From the Horses mouth

[Blue Aardvark House]

I love that the call their own business a "problem"!

At least they're honest.

Re:From the Horses mouth

[Shin Elendale]

I'm guessing some techie at the company set that up, tired of looking at his own company's products :)

-Elendale

Re:From the Horses mouth

[cbowland]

You are right about that.

If honesty and disclosure go hand in hand, I would like to know what percentage of their own employees browse the net with the X10 ads turned "off". And not just the Q/A folks who have to make sure the stuff is working.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Re:From the Horses mouth

[theblackdeer]

as a former x10.com tech support CSR, we had a lot of complaints about those ads. the wierd things is, though, they work. like crazy. the sales floor became much, much busier after we started running those popups (or pop unders).

while this is good for teh sales floor, the tech dept (where i worked) was suddenly flooded with "how do i get this virus off my computer?!?!" due to some complaints from our dept, as well as a zillion emails to webmaster@x10.com, the page and cookie to disable the link was put up.

i don't know how many of you remember the ads x10 put on slashdot and freshmeat a few years ago, but those were the pleasant times. it's nice taking calls from people who can work their computer. now, with all the advertising on space.com, msn.com, etc. we're getting calls like "hey! my screen if flashing all different colors now! oh, i move the mouse and it's back to normal."

Re:From the Horses mouth

[theblackdeer]

i don't have the percentage, but everyone i know at x10 turns them off.

Re:From the Horses mouth

[theblackdeer]

its actually dismissed everytime it's mentioned. everyone there knows that it's suggested ... the ads, come on. there's some old articles on ZDnet, too, (if i remmeber correctly) with Pres Alex Peder talking about "we'd be very disapointed if anyone used our cameras that way." but it's a major ploy the marketing/web dept uses.

speaking of perversions, though - x10 sells this program called XRay Vision. it allows a client and server program to connect and share pictures from the x10 cams. while working in tech support, one of the other guys there was talking to a customer, trying to get the system working. they customer on the phone said "well, here's my id key and password - see if you can connect." it did connect, and the images were the guy at his computer with no pants, no underwear. the guy hung up right then, and we passed a rule right then and there that we would no longer offer to connect to users' machines.

Pop-ups

[probabilistic]

It would be great if, like the "always trust content from this source" checkbox you can select when downloading plug-ins, etc, there was a "never display pop-ups from this source" option.

mozilla can block popups

[mattdm]

There's no UI for it yet, but you can edit your prefs file. See the release notes for details...

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open ", "noAccess");

Re:mozilla can block popups

[astrosmash]

Here's a better link to Mozilla's Configurable Security Policies

Re:mozilla can block popups

[Rytsarsky]

If you read on in the release notes you'll find:

The security manager will throw a JavaScript exception, preventing the function from being called. Unless the web page catches the exception, the script will stop and an error message will appear on the JavaScript console

How long until ad companies start catch execptions, and figure out another way to annoy us? Long time, I hope.

Pop-up Ads will soon be gone

[WIAKywbfatw]

By definition, pop-up ads are invasive. They interupt the browsing experience and generate very negative reactions from users.

The first thing I do when I see one is close down the offending window - I very rarely even look at what is being shoved down my throat.

The pop-up ad is just a phase. Advertisers saw that traditional banner ads weren't working so the marketing people were asked to come up with something different. However, once the user feedback tricles up the chain (via complaints, usability studies, etc) they will be consigned to the bin by any ad agency worth it's salt.

Unfortunately, as one bad idea dies a death, another one springs to life. The sucessor to the pop-up will probably be just as annoying although, eventually, the ad industry will find some form of getting the message across that 99% of the browsing public can live with.

Re:Pop-up Ads will soon be gone

[ilsa]

Well, it isn't so much that banner ads are ineffective, but rather that it is so easy to tell how ineffective they are. It is more feedback than advertisors ever had, and much more than they really want.

Imagine if you had a button on your tv remote that would get you a nice cold Pepsi if you pressed it every time you saw a Pepsi ad. Realistically you would not press that button very often. Then, no matter how much Pepsi might be in your fridge, the folks at PepsiCo would think that advertising did not work.

All things considered I'd much rather have banners than pop-* windows.

Well...

[oogleybob]

They might be annoying, but at least they're effective. People NOTICE them. I knew right away what x10 was when I read it in this story, after having seen that ad many times. I don't notice banner ads, because they're so easy to ignore. Whatever works to keep good content free...... -Berj

Last time this came up...

[brassman]

...there were a lot of good tips. Just this morning I screamed "!YA BASTA!" and used the /. search box to find that thread, and downloaded Webwasher.

Funny coincidence to see this thread "pop up" right after doing that.
--

pop-up stopper

[insidious]

panicware.com has a free program for windows users called 'pop-up stopper'.

http://www.panicware.com/downloads/PopUpStopper22. exe

if you want to allow a pop-up, you hold ctrl while clicking the link. I've been using this for about a month and it works really well.

Re:pop-up stopper

[markb]

I agree. I can't live without this program. Of course, it only works with IE (this is what finally convinced me to ditch Nutscrape) and it does its job a little too well. It would be nice if it were smarter, and allowed me to open a new instance of IE via the File->New menu option or the desktop shortcut. And I would think it would be possible to make a pop-up blocker that was able to distinguish between pop-ups that resulted from me clicking a link and other pop-ups.

Re:pop-up stopper

[oliveloaf]

Yeah, its great, except I know have to hold ctrl when loading IE

They are also a popular feature for web designers

[mikosullivan]

Users may not like popups, but web designers keep wanting to use them. The Popup Tutorial is the most popular section of my web site, and it's by far the topic I get the most questions on.

I'm not fond of popup ads either, but popups do have their place. I find them handy for help links that provide extra help on something in a form without having to leave the form.

Miko O'Sullivan

Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[Meltr]

> Fortunately, Konqueror allows you to disable popups with a single checkbox.

Mozilla 0.9.2 can block popups, too, but there's no UI for it yet. Add this to your prefs.js file:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");

You can also allow popups from some sites. See the 0.9.2 release notes for details.

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[krappie]

Yup, you can allow only certain sites to pop up ads too. Very neat.

I also love right clicking on pictures and doing "Block Images from this Server." This feature was broken in 0.9 and 0.9.1 I think, but works again in 0.9.2. I've got a big list of servers built up, and many new pages won't have banner ads. Banner ads are far less annoying, but its nice to turn them off when you don't have much bandwidth.

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[jdavidb]

I tried this, but I have two questions:

• prefs.js contains a comment at the top saying it is a generated file. What causes the file to be generated? Am I going to have to add this line again each time I change preferences from the edit menu? (I presume there is a user interface coming soon.)
• My prefs.js file is in a subdirectory under my ~/.mozilla/ directory that seems to have no meaningful name. (It is apparently a random 8.3 filename.) Did I edit the right file? What gives with this directory?

Any info anyone could provide would be great.

I'm glad to find out 0.9.2 (which I just downloaded; guess what site I went to first. :) ) provides this functionality. This feature definitely belongs in the browser on my machine, not on the advertiser's server. If they want to make money advertising, they'll just have to find a more effective means of making sure I see it. Sucking up my 33.6 dialup bandwidth is not it.

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[mbrubeck]

If you create a file called user.js alongside prefs.js then you can create settings there as well. Using user.js makes it easier to migrate settings from one Mozilla installation to another, etc.

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[Platinum Dragon]

prefs.js contains a comment at the top saying it is a generated file. What causes the file to be generated? Am I going to have to add this line again each time I change preferences from the edit menu? (I presume there is a user interface coming soon.)

Any changes to prefs.js are written, as far as I can tell, to the file when the browser is closed normally. You need to edit the file when Mozilla isn't running, but once the additional lines are in, they stay even through future prefs changes.

My prefs.js file is in a subdirectory under my ~/.mozilla/ directory that seems to have no meaningful name. (It is apparently a random 8.3 filename.) Did I edit the right file? What gives with this directory?

Yep, you got it. The 8.3 dir has been there since soon after M17 (I think). It was added to prevent easy attacks on preference and control files stored in the profile directory by not giving attackers a known path to call. For example, an attacker might wish to edit .mozilla/$profile/chrome/userChrome.css, through some Javascript in a page, to do "rm -rf /" every time you click on "File". By adding the randomly-named directory, the attacker would either need to brute-force the name or know precisely how and when it was created.

Galeon seems to implement UI for the no-popups function; you may want to grab it, as it's quite functional, and you still get Gecko goodness.

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[Meltr]

Not sure I understand your question, but if you're asking about blocked images:

Edit > Preferences...
Privacy and Security > Images
Click "View Image Permissions" button

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[arielb]

For more info check this out: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/component s/configPolicy.html You can do a lt more than just block pop ups

Re:Mozilla 0.9.2 Blocks Popups

[kimihia]

Indeed it does! However that stops everything that attempts to pop up a window. Including Mozilla's very own bug helper form.

The solution is to disable Javascript then use: this one I believe.

Any website that depends on Javascript should be spurned.

You know you need em

[moz711]

If we didn't have popup adds, microsoft, and spam, then what would we bitch about?
We might have to start bitching about things like global warming or starvation in 3rd world contries.

Moz

X10 opt out doesn't work

[GuNgA-DiN]

I've used thier opt-out link a couple of times, but still get the popup ads for X10. Banner ads don't work. The click-through rates have been dropping like a stone since 1994. Nobody clicks on ads anymore.

My question is what makes these advertisers think that we are suddenly going to say "Oh! Wow! I wasn't going to buy your product before.... but, since you popped up an ad in my face, I just changed my mind. Here's my money!"

Maybe if we're all really lucky, the Net will revert back to the way it was. All the commercial sites will give up trying to "make a quick buck" off the Internet. They will close their doors and go away. Then, since there is no more money to be made or commercial content to be seen... all the marketing idiots will go away too.

In the end, we will be left with text-only pages (viewable in Lynx) with no ads, no Flash, no Quicktimes, and no corporate American bullshit. I don't understand -- why is this is a bad thing again!?!? I would love to go back to the Web the way it was in 1993 - 94. No Porn. No Ads. No Bullshit. No Morons. No Commercialism. Just Net.

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[Logic Bomb]

Your question is at the crux of the advertising business. What marketers have learned is that recognition is everything. If you walk up to a grocery store shelf and recognize one brand name out of four offering a comparable product, you are far more likely to buy the one you recognize. There are good reasons for this (i.e. knowing Sony equipment is reliable), and marketers simply exploit it. No matter how annoyed people get at ads, few will say "oh, I hate those damn ads, I'm going to buy this product from a company I've never heard of instead." Companies will go to great lengths to get their name in your brain, and for good reason.

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[GuNgA-DiN]

I have no moral objection to it. But, they are the ones leading the charge in aggressive, in-your-face advertising techniques. Hell, they invented it!

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[InsaneGeek]

I remember there being lots of porn on Gopher & Archie back in 93 during college :)

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[jrp2]

I would love to go back to the Web the way it was in 1993 - 94. No Porn. No Ads. No Bullshit. No Morons. No Commercialism. Just Net.

To be honest, I am not all that dissapointed in the way the web, and Internet as a whole, turned out. No, I don't like ads, but I mentally filter them out. I admit, I really do dislike these X10 popup ads (and similar Verizon ads on Accuweather), hopefully few buy or even click through and that practice will go away.

But, I completely disagree with totally de-commercializing the web. It is commercialization that indirectly pays for a big chunk of the bandwidth and infrastructure of the net. I really like being able to find out product information on the web (for almost anything). I often buy things, research travel options, etc. on the web. I'd much rather research this stuff on the net than pollute the world driving around to stores.

What I really hope is some genius figures out the right combination of useful ads that don't annoy (much at least), but are effective, so we can carry on, enjoy both the commercial and non-commercial aspects of the Internet at a reasonable cost and high performance.

Basically, I respectfully disagree with your view of how the Internet should move back in time. I know it seems silly, but perhaps the brain-trust in this forum can help figure out how to help the stupid marketers be less annoying while still helping fund the growth and maintenance of the net.

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[Ratbert42]

I've used thier opt-out link a couple of times, but still get the popup ads for X10.

Same here. I opted out two days ago and I get the pop-under at least twice a day. Same browser, same cookie set, same IP. What's up with that?

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[rho]

I would love to go back to the Web the way it was in 1993 - 94. No Porn. No Ads. No Bullshit. No Morons. No Commercialism. Just Net.

All Male, All Students, All White. Nerdvana at last!

If an exclusionary 'Net is what you want, go live in a cave.

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[Loligo]

>No Cable Modem, no DSL, No thanks.

Sure, but back in '93-'94 we also didn't have Quicktime/AVI/RealVideo, MP3, or Flash, so aside from downloading your latest Linux distribution, your v.32bis modem should be just fine.

-l

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[caca_phony]

I use lynx all the time, loading images takes longer anyway, and if I really want to look at a picture, I download it and look at it with electric eyes. I hate frames, by the way.

Re:X10 opt out doesn't work

[mother_superius]

No porn? You think that's nerdvana? What's heaven like?

Probably clothed, I guess.

-----

Speak of the devil...

[tsmit]

I sent this to webmaster@x10.com THIS morning...

Cut from your site:

Note: As the Internet is growing and evolving very quickly so are the ways and means of advertising online. A few years ago, the standard 468x60 "rectangle" ads at the top of web sites were very new. Many people were uncomfortable with these ads but with time, people got used to the ads. In the last year many different sizes and styles of ads have been used to try to add more value to the advertiser. X10.com is simply using a new form of advertising. Please try to understand that this type of advertising is what keeps the Internet enjoyable as it pays for operational costs behind the sites you enjoy visiting for free. There are some content based sites that do not accept advertising, yet charge a subscription fee to view their content. This tradeoff is the current environment of the Internet today.

Maybe you would care to use different wording, as about 90% of the people who have to deal with your ads on a daily basis don't find it "enjoyable". If your products were good and viable, you would not need to stoop as low as you have by using these pop-under ads. I know that I, and all of my friends, have sworn off buying ANYTHING from x10.com ever due to your "agressive" ad campaign. If you enjoy losing customers, then, by all means, keep up the good work!

Thank you,
Signed by me

live with it.

[TomRitchford]

Someone has to pay for all those sites. Since we the viewers aren't paying for them, it has to be advertisers.

If one form of advertising particularly bothers you, just don't purchase the product advertised. They'll catch on really fast...

Re:live with it.

[TomRitchford]

When they have to close up shop because they cant pay for the bandwidth, the bandwidth companies will start to lose. This will in turn make the bandwidth a *LOT* cheaper, or better options for sites.
Wow, that's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start!
0) once the sites are out-of-business, they're gone. they aren't going to come back from the grave just because they can save money on bandwidth.
1) if fewer places are using bandwidth, the price will go UP, not down, as the ISPs desperately try to make some money with fewer clients. If they consolidate, the prices will go up even more.
2) connectivity expenses aren't the largest cost for sites, personnel costs are (by far!)

My /etc/hosts

[crow]

127.0.0.1 localhost

#
# The following is to kill off web advertisements
#
# This also kills some user-tracking cookie servers.
#
# This works best if you run a web server that sends a redirect to
# a transparent image for non-found errors.
#
# This list has grown up over time. No effort has been made to verify that all
# the hosts listed here still exist.
#
# A few servers serve ads with URLs based on IP numbers instead of host names.
# The following IP numbers are for hosts that serve ads:
# 159.33.1.57
# 199.172.144.25
# 208.143.212.30
# 208.178.101.42 ww2.salon.com
# 208.178.101.43 ww3.salon.com
# 208.178.101.46 ww6.salon.com
# 209.207.224.220
# 209.249.169.51 imgfarm.sjc.mediaplex.com.
# 216.34.88.243 ???.avenuea.com
# Unfortunately, I can't deal with those here. Instead, use netconf
# to specify ip aliases for those addresses on the loopback device.
#
127.0.0.1 imageserv2.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 cw.cache.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 fp.cache.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 adforce.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 adforce.ads.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net m.doubleclick.net m1.doubleclick.net ln.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.au.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.de.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads01.focalink.com ads02.focalink.com ads03.focalink.com ads04.focalink.com ads05.focalink.com ads06.focalink.com ads07.focalink.com ads08.focalink.com ads09.focalink.com ads10.focalink.com
127.0.0.1 ads11.focalink.com ads12.focalink.com ads13.focalink.com ads14.focalink.com ads15.focalink.com ads16.focalink.com ads17.focalink.com ads18.focalink.com ads19.focalink.com ads20.focalink.com
127.0.0.1 ads21.focalink.com ads22.focalink.com ads23.focalink.com ads24.focalink.com ads25.focalink.com ads26.focalink.com ads27.focalink.com ads28.focalink.com ads29.focalink.com ads30.focalink.com
127.0.0.1 ph-ad19.focalink.com
127.0.0.1 ads.smartclicks.com
127.0.0.1 fooladserver.fool.com
127.0.0.1 fooladserver1.fool.com fooladserver2.fool.com fooladserver3.fool.com fooladserver4.fool.com
127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com media.preferences.com gm.preferences.com static.preferences.com
127.0.0.1 adfu.blockstackers.com
127.0.0.1 www.ad.tomshardware.com
127.0.0.1 maximumpcads.imaginemedia.com
127.0.0.1 a32.g.a.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 us.a1.yimg.com
127.0.0.1 ads.weather.com
127.0.0.1 www.adclub.net
127.0.0.1 leader.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 commonwealth.riddler.com
127.0.0.1 server3.pennyweb.com
127.0.0.1 www.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 ad-adex3.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 dar-ad.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 adex3.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 360interactive-ad.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 www.eads.com
127.0.0.1 www.computercontrolled.com
127.0.0.1 image.eimg.com
127.0.0.1 jeeves.flycast.com
127.0.0.1 ads.fool.com
127.0.0.1 ads.adflight.com
127.0.0.1 ads.fp.sandpiper.net
127.0.0.1 ads1.zdnet.com ads2.zdnet.com ads3.zdnet.com ads4.zdnet.com ads5.zdnet.com
127.0.0.1 ads.web.aol.com
127.0.0.1 static.admaximize.com
127.0.0.1 ads.freshmeat.net
127.0.0.1 banner.orb.net
127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
127.0.0.1 ads.bankrate.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads.ilife.com
127.0.0.1 UGO.eu-adcenter.net
127.0.0.1 image.accendo.com
127.0.0.1 banners.egroups.com
127.0.0.1 ads.station.sony.com
127.0.0.1 ad.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 banner.linksynergy.com
127.0.0.1 adcreatives.imaginemedia.com
127.0.0.1 Ogilvy.ngadcenter.net
127.0.0.1 www.websponsors.com
127.0.0.1 image.ugo.com
127.0.0.1 netadsrv.iworld.com
127.0.0.1 ads.lycos.com
127.0.0.1 ads.idahostatesman.com
127.0.0.1 ads.admonitor.net
127.0.0.1 ads.ecircles.com
127.0.0.1 image.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 websponsors.com
127.0.0.1 a1896.g.akamaitech.net
127.0.0.1 a8.g.akamaitech.net
127.0.0.1 a1868.g.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 a1444.g.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 a852.g.akamai.net
127.0.0.1 ads.tromaville.com
127.0.0.1 adimages.go.com
127.0.0.1 servedby.advertising.com
127.0.0.1 a.r.tv.com
127.0.0.1 banners.cyberrebate.com
127.0.0.1 retaildirect.realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 images.go2net.com
127.0.0.1 ads.nytimes.com
127.0.0.1 ups3.uexpress.com
127.0.0.1 adrunner.mycomputer.com
127.0.0.1 ads.tucows.com
127.0.0.1 lnads.osdn.com
127.0.0.1 s2a.realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 connect.247media.ads.link4ads.com
127.0.0.1 ups4.uexpress.com
127.0.0.1 ads1.intelliads.com
127.0.0.1 kcookie.netscape.com
127.0.0.1 voter-images.adbureau.net
127.0.0.1 media-adrunner.mycomputer.com
127.0.0.1 adserver.colleges.com
127.0.0.1 sfads.osdn.com
127.0.0.1 etad.telegraph.co.uk
127.0.0.1 www.vicinity.com
127.0.0.1 www.commission-junction.com
127.0.0.1 www.webspawner.com
127.0.0.1 m.tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 promo.cuica.net
127.0.0.1 adserver.matchcraft.com
127.0.0.1 fmads.osdn.com sd-images.osdn.com
127.0.0.1 www.qksrv.net
127.0.0.1 allegiantmarketing.com
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 www.domaindirect.com
127.0.0.1 www.avsads.com
127.0.0.1 ads.quicken.com
127.0.0.1 ads.intuit.com
127.0.0.1 g.fool.com
127.0.0.1 images.cybereps.com
127.0.0.1 adfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 img-sjc.wip.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 img-iad.wip.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 img-snv.wip.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 mojofarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 altfarm.mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 ads.userfriendly.org
127.0.0.1 www3.bannerspace.com
127.0.0.1 statse.webtrendslive.com
127.0.0.1 global.msads.net
127.0.0.1 imp.clickability.com
127.0.0.1 stats.superstats.com code.superstats.com
127.0.0.1 toolbar.netscape.com
127.0.0.1 adserver.greatvehicles.com
127.0.0.1 hc2.humanclick.com
127.0.0.1 www.naj.sk
127.0.0.1 view.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 stats.lwn.net
127.0.0.1 ad.etech.sk

#
# The following list is based on the default blocking from Junkbuster.
# I've cut out anything with wildcards, subdirectories, or ports.
# Junkbuster is no longer distributing this list.
#
127.0.0.1 1ad.prolinks.de
127.0.0.1 ad-up.com
127.0.0.1 ad.adsmart.net
127.0.0.1 ad.atlas.cz
127.0.0.1 ad.blm.net
127.0.0.1 ad.dogpile.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.infoseek.com
127.0.0.1 ad.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 ad.mgd.de
127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.vol.at
127.0.0.1 adbot.com
127.0.0.1 adbot.theonion.com
127.0.0.1 adbureau.net
127.0.0.1 adcontent.gamespy.com
127.0.0.1 adcount.hollywood.com
127.0.0.1 adforce.adtech.de
127.0.0.1 adimage.blm.net
127.0.0.1 adimages.go.com
127.0.0.1 adisnet.com
127.0.0.1 adlink.deh.de
127.0.0.1 adone.com
127.0.0.1 adpower.de
127.0.0.1 ads.austriaonline.at
127.0.0.1 ads.bomis.com
127.0.0.1 ads.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 ads.chickclick.com
127.0.0.1 ads.clickagents.com
127.0.0.1 ads.csi.emcweb.com
127.0.0.1 ads.enliven.com
127.0.0.1 ads.filez.com
127.0.0.1 ads.freshmeat.net
127.0.0.1 ads.guardianunlimited.co.uk
127.0.0.1 ads.i33.com
127.0.0.1 ads.ign.com
127.0.0.1 ads.imagine-inc.com
127.0.0.1 ads.imdb.com
127.0.0.1 ads.infospace.com
127.0.0.1 ads.iqweb.de
127.0.0.1 ads.jwtt3.com
127.0.0.1 ads.lycos.com
127.0.0.1 ads.mirrormedia.co.uk
127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
127.0.0.1 ads.narrowline.com
127.0.0.1 ads.newcitynet.com
127.0.0.1 ads.newsint.co.uk
127.0.0.1 ads.ntadvice.com
127.0.0.1 ads.realcities.com
127.0.0.1 ads.realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 ads.salonmagazine.com
127.0.0.1 ads.smartclicks.com
127.0.0.1 ads.switchboard.com
127.0.0.1 ads.tripod.com
127.0.0.1 ads.usatoday.com
127.0.0.1 ads.washingtonpost.com
127.0.0.1 ads.weather.com
127.0.0.1 ads.web.aol.com
127.0.0.1 ads.web.de
127.0.0.1 ads.web21.com
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 ads2.gamecity.net
127.0.0.1 adserv.newcentury.net
127.0.0.1 adservant.mediapoint.de
127.0.0.1 adserver-espnet.sportszone.com
127.0.0.1 adserver.affiliation.com
127.0.0.1 adserver.bluewin.ch
127.0.0.1 adserver.findurl.com
127.0.0.1 adserver2.bluewin.ch
127.0.0.1 advert.heise.de
127.0.0.1 adwisdom.com
127.0.0.1 annonce.insite.dk
127.0.0.1 badservant.guj.de
127.0.0.1 banner-net.com
127.0.0.1 banner.arttoday.com
127.0.0.1 banner.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 banners.internetextra.com
127.0.0.1 banners.nextcard.com
127.0.0.1 bannersolutions.com
127.0.0.1 bannerswap.com
127.0.0.1 bannervip.webjump.com
127.0.0.1 bizad.nikkeibp.co.jp
127.0.0.1 cash-for-clicks.de
127.0.0.1 click..wisewire.com
127.0.0.1 customad.cnn.com
127.0.0.1 dino.mainz.ibm.de
127.0.0.1 ds.austriaonline.at
127.0.0.1 emap.admedia.net
127.0.0.1 eurosponsor.de
127.0.0.1 fastcounter.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 flycast.com
127.0.0.1 ganges.imagine-inc.com
127.0.0.1 globaltrack.com
127.0.0.1 globaltrak.net
127.0.0.1 hitbox.com
127.0.0.1 hurra.de
127.0.0.1 hyperbanner.net
127.0.0.1 image.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 images.nytimes.com
127.0.0.1 imageserv.adtech.de
127.0.0.1 img.web.de
127.0.0.1 leader.linkexchange.com
127.0.0.1 link4ads.com
127.0.0.1 link4link.com
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 media.priceline.com
127.0.0.1 mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 members.sexroulette.com
127.0.0.1 messenger.netscape.com
127.0.0.1 newads.cmpnet.com
127.0.0.1 ngadcenter.net
127.0.0.1 nrsite.com
127.0.0.1 nt..imagine-inc.com
127.0.0.1 offers.egroups.com
127.0.0.1 pagecount.com
127.0.0.1 preferences.com
127.0.0.1 promo.ads.softbank.net
127.0.0.1 pub.nomade.fr
127.0.0.1 revenue.infi.net
127.0.0.1 spinbox1.filez.com
127.0.0.1 swiftad.com
127.0.0.1 tcsads.tcs.co.at
127.0.0.1 tm.intervu.net
127.0.0.1 ultra.multimania.com
127.0.0.1 ultra1.socomm.net
127.0.0.1 uproar.com
127.0.0.1 valueclick.com st.valueclick.com
127.0.0.1 victory.cnn.com
127.0.0.1 videoserver.kpix.com
127.0.0.1 webcounter.goweb.de
127.0.0.1 www.adclub.net
127.0.0.1 www.ads.warnerbros.com
127.0.0.1 www.clickagents.com
127.0.0.1 www.clickthrough.ca
127.0.0.1 www.omdispatch.co.uk
127.0.0.1 www.sponsorpool.net
127.0.0.1 www.ugo.net
127.0.0.1 www.webpeep.com
127.0.0.1 xb.xoom.com

Re:My /etc/hosts

[Brownstar]

I wonder how much time he spent going through this script to remove the servers for porn adds, before posting to slashdot?;>

Re:My /etc/hosts

[Neph]

# This works best if you run a web server that sends a redirect to
# a transparent image for non-found errors.

Oh, I disagree. I personally get a little twinge of joy every time my browser shows a grey banner ad-shaped box with "Not Found" in big black letters at the top of a web page. But that's just me.

Re:My /etc/hosts

[jvoisin]

I have something similar on my laptop.. the thing is, just wait till it gets big.. Watched the CPU hit 100% for 10 minutes while it was processing it... mind you, I tried a 11,000 line hosts file. *grin*

Re:My /etc/hosts

[jafac]

okay - anyone know how to do this in Classic Mac OS?

Re:My /etc/hosts

[NullStream]

Setup a local dns cache (I prefer tinydns as it's not bind and fast). Then just add each of the add hosts an entry for localhost. Done.

Re:My /etc/hosts

[weatherboy]

The hosts file used in Classic MacOS has the name/ip pairs reversed. You can load it from the TCP/IP control panel when the "advanced" user mode is enabled. Try this:
;
; Hosts file for Open Transport TCP/IP on MacOS
;
imageserv2.imgis.com 127.0.0.1
cw.cache.imgis.com 127.0.0.1
fp.cache.imgis.com 127.0.0.1
adforce.imgis.com 127.0.0.1
....

Re:My /etc/hosts

[Saint Aardvark]

LOL...ah, mercy.

Re:My /etc/hosts

[Mr_Silver]

This won't unfortunately work with IE and Windows unless you are running a web server.

If you don't have a web server then the webpage appears and then as soon as it tries to get the advert you get a full page error from IE saying that the site is unavailable.

Just FYI.

--

Re:My /etc/hosts

[SpeelingChekka]

I've configured our proxy to not feed a transparent image, but a very prominent image of the word "AD" in a red circle with a big red stripe through it (a bit like a 'no parking' sign). Just as big a kick, trust me.

pop ups?

[joq]

I guess all those people who're complaining know little about turning off java, and java script. I've managed to go months on end without seeing pop ups since I see no need for viewing sites with it enabled anyway.

Could it be those who are complaining are the ones who end up getting bombarded with spam from porn, warez, and geoshitties pages? Personally I see more problems with cookies than I do with pop ups.

Re:pop ups?

[vorpal22]

Turning off Java is fine, and AFAIK, many people have turned off Java. However, turning off JavaScript isn't an option for most people, because a lot of sites heavily rely on client side JavaScript to function properly.

Re:pop ups?

[donglekey]

not that disabling java would really be that big of a deal. I have never heard of advertising through java, and it isn't used very much anyway.

Increase the optout beyond thirty days...

[Canabinol]

The link to "opt out" of their ads is as follows:

http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=30&PAGE=htt p://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

Will altering the "DAY=30" part mean we can opt out for even longer? e.g.

http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=500&PAGE=ht tp://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

I hope so. I'm getting dozens of these damn popup ads every day. To make matters worse I bought one of their wireless cameras over a year ago via a banner ad (one of the few times I've ever actually clicked on a banner) so am in part responsible for encouraging X10 in the first place. :o(

AOL OnExit Ads

[DCMonkey]

Some site I visit occasionally has those OnExit ads that popup after you leave the site. When the ad is for AOL and the next site you visit is CNN.com, it sure gets the anti-monopolistic juices a'flowin until you realize what is going on.

Metakey for popups

[raynet]

Browsers should by default ignore popup scripts, except when the user clicks a link with eg. CTRL-key. This way all unwanted popups would disappear and users could still use those sites that want to popups in links rather than just linking. Unfortunately these pro-popup sites then would just add onClick="createPopUp();" to their links.

a better way

[ravrazor]

Sure, you can disable the popups through javascript or a proxy, but a more longterm solution:

Don't click them.
They'll die on their own (as they are beginning to do, if you've noticed that dot-commers with business models based on page view ad sales...are in the outs investment-wise).

Another way: don't keep silent when your company uses them on its web sites -- complain loudly...

Mozilla prevention

[PRR]

From Mozilla 0.9.2 release notes:

The syntax for blocking pop-up windows has changed since Mozilla 0.9. To block pop-up windows, add this line to the prefs.js file in your Mozilla profile directory while Mozilla is not running:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open ", "noAccess");

What I did

[karmawarrior]

As I run my own (private, natch) name server, I put myself as "owner" of the x10.com domain in it, and had ads.x10.com resolve to a non-existant address. I've done much the same with doubleclick.com and other sites that have regularly pissed me off.

The result of this isn't that the windows don't continue to pop up, they do. But as they appear under the browser, it's no great deal. Most importantly, the ads don't suck dry my limited bandwidth (across a modem link) so I can browse at a reasonable pace.

For those who need to know, this is what I did (BIND4, as I'm using OpenBSD as my firewall/NAT-based proxy):

I added the line:

primary x10.com x10.com

to my named.boot file. Then created a x10.com file in my namedb directory, reading something like this:

@ IN SOA x10.com. nic.pillory.peh.link. (
19971003
28800
7200
3600000
86400 )
NS pillory.peh.link.
ads A 10.255.0.0
Actually, any half competent DNS admin should be able to do something similar with their setup.

This has benefits over putting the entries in your /etc/hosts in two ways: to begin with, everything under x10.com is blocked, so if x10.com start putting out stuff as ads2.x10.com, the block will still take effect. Secondly, the file applies to every machine on your network. If you have an Intranet at home like I do, that's useful.

Ultimately, if companies want money for their content, they'd be better off asking for it from me than bombarding me with ads. I fully intend to stop visiting certain sites, however much it pains me, until they start providing me with a way to turn off intrusive, bandwidth sucking, unstable browser crashing (y'hear me Netscape? ;-) advertising, whether it be via a subscription or some other means.

And yep, I put my money where my mouth is. I've put in my two year sub to Salon with donation. There's stuff out there I'm willing to pay for. I want to read the site, not get too pissed at it and impatient I end up surfing somewhere else...
--

Re:What I did

[um... Lucas]

Ultimately, if companies want money for their content, they'd be better off asking for it from me than bombarding me with ads. I fully intend to stop visiting certain sites, however much it pains me, until they start providing me with a way to turn off intrusive, bandwidth sucking, unstable browser crashing (y'hear me Netscape? ;-) advertising, whether it be via a subscription or some other means.

ermmm... slashdots ads are driven by javascript, you know... Is that one of said sites? Otherwise quit comlaining... It's only a small popup with a GIF in it, for whatever's sake! Even on a 28.8 connection that can't bog you down for more than 15 seconds. And it pays for the content so that you don't have to, because obviously somebody out there is actually interested in whatever's being sold...

Re:What I did

[karmawarrior]

Slashdot isn't one of said sites, on two counts: it's not one I feel is valuable enough to pay for (I'm not saying it's a bad site, it's just not something I want to spend money on) and it isn't a site that accepts (currently) instrusive advertising. Right now it's an ad-banners only website, and I'm happy with that.

If Slashdot did start accepting that kind of advertising, I'd stop reading it, in an instant.

As far the "it pays for the content so that you don't have to", as I said, I'm happy about paying for content from some sites on the 'net. I've proven that, I've paid for content from Salon and others. If Yahoo asked, I'd pay for that. But right now, with its infuriating combination of giant ads sat in the middle of some articles, and pop-down ads appearing elsewhere, and no sign that a "pay for surfing in peace" option is on the horizon, I'm more likely to ditch it.

If someone else paying for something means I can't concentrate on what it is that was paid for, I'd rather they didn't - just as I'm not going to accept a drink that's "free" if it's been spiked.
--

galeon and mozilla...

[Skeezix]

Fortunately, Konqueror allows you to disable popups with a single checkbox.

You can disable popups in Galeon and Mozilla as well. In mozilla 0.9.2 you add the following line to your prefs.js while mozilla is not running:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");

In galeon it's just a checkbox in the preferences, IIRC. Also, what I like to do is set all popups and new url's opened to go to a new tab. I love tabbed browsing. If it's an annoying add, I can ignore that tab or close it later.

More surprising news

[geekoid]

While people are getting tired of pop-up ads, they don't seem to be getting tired of free content. Scientists remained baffled...
enough levity.. It galls me that someone would compare pop-up ads to drive by shooting. What kind of life does someone have where they think having an ad pop-up is as devestating as watching your childs life bleed away in front of your eyes?
The comparison is either:
a)founded by someone who is a complete idiot, and/or
b)founded by someone who seems to know how important this subject really is(i.e. NOT) and uses this kind of over bearing analogy in the hopes that it will give his 'cause' some justification.
I can picture it now...
lets see, I can help the hungery.. naw they whine
I can help the homeless... naw the smell
I can fight for people in 3rd world country to help stop the slavery of children...naw, they deserve it, beside I like cheap stuff
lets see I know! i can fight to put an end to those pop-up ads that disturb me when I'm surfing for free porn! thats it! thats my calling in life! I use poor analagies to complain about the way companies are trying to get money to pay for content that is free for me!!
next episode our hero tries valiantly to put an end to those nasty TV comercials because there just like burning to death in a fire...

X10 Alternatives

[augustz]

I actually like buying X10 stuff, home automation is fun. What others companies sell this stuff on the web at reasonable prices? I'd love to take my business elsewhere and some recommendations would be great.

Re:X10 Alternatives

[theblackdeer]

smarthome.com, and gadgethome.com are the best for home automation. for cameras, go to supercircuits.com.

Re:X10 Alternatives

[rf600r]

Wrong, fuckstick. x10 is a protocol. (No wonder your mom killed herself. Geez.)

Re:X10 Alternatives

[theblackdeer]

no, you're right about the protocol, but x10(usa) makes the modules for radio shack. dumb ass.

Re:X10 Alternatives

[sdo1]

I'd second the nomination on smarthome.com. They've got an extensive catalog of stuff. I've ordered from them and was happy with the transaction. I don't know of the other companies mentioned, so I can't comment (and I've got no affiliation with any of them).

It's important to note that X10.com doesn't "own" the X10 standard. There's absolutely NO reason to buy from them when other companies are producing X10 compatible products. I'd bought from X10.com before, but they've royally pissed me off with this stuff, so they're off the list.

-S

Why can't I just disable "new window" in J-script?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also like to see an option for disabling images not coming from the same domain as the web page.

under/over

[jaredcat]

this may just be symantecs.. but x10 uses 'pop under' ads, not 'pop up' ads. Their ads appear under rather than over the active browser window.

Re:under/over

[forii]

just because an ad shows up under the other windows doesn't mean that it doesn't "pop-up" and annoy the hell out of you.

Re:under/over

[ShavenYak]

The word is "semantics". Symantec is the company that sells Norton Utilities and such.

Konqueror's great; iCab somewhat more complete

[Frater 219]

Of all the Web browsers I've seen, the experimental Macintosh browser iCab seems to have the most features for restricting pop-ups and other abusive JavaScript[?]. iCab permits one to enable or disable several different JavaScript/ECMAscript functions (as well as other "features") on a per-site basis. It also offers excellent image filtering -- to the point that I don't feel the need to use my Junkbuster proxy when I'm using iCab.

Sadly, the iCab folks have said they're not interested in porting to GNU/Linux. Among the GNU/Linux browsers, my favorite by far is Konqueror. Like iCab on the Macintosh, Konq is small, fast, and customizable. However, it still lags a bit behind in the way of filtering. Site-specific, function-specific JavaScript filtering would be an excellent addition to what's already easily the best browser in the Free world.

Re:Konqueror's great; iCab somewhat more complete

[jesser]

Mozilla lets you deny access to specific javascript functions on a per-site (or per-group-of-sites) basis, but currently you have to edit your preferences file manually. See the documentation on mozilla.org for instructions on how to set up your security preferences.

Re:Konqueror's great; iCab somewhat more complete

[tregoweth]

Sadly, the iCab folks have said they're not interested in porting to GNU/Linux.

Strictly speaking, the iCab gang aren't interested in porting anywhere -- they're just trying to make a decent Mac browser.

-j (why, I'm using it now!)

X10 ads

[update()]

Boy, Taco has become quite the Konqueror enthusiast! The ability to quickly switch off pop-ups while keeping the rest of the (site-specific) JavaScript usage intact is one of my favorite features also.

Anyway, since the subject of X10 ads came up -- are those ads almost overtly recommending the use of their product for hidden-camera spying on women? Or do I just have a dirty mind? Seriously, it's hard for me to me imagine what else the message is supposed to be.

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

Re:X10 ads

[ErikTheRed]

They rely exlusively on sales to guys about to throw batchelor parties....

SafeWeb.com

[Tuxinatorium]

safeweb.com is a free proxy service that will work with any Java-compatible browser. It lets you disable popups, cookies, malicious scripts, and whatever else you want to. It also hides your IP address.

/. pop-ups

[AX.25]

Everytime I start my browser up pops /. How do I stop this? Help.

Re:/. pop-ups

[Rudeboy777]

You might just want to copy and paste this at the command prompt. It should fix you problem.

;-)

Re:/. pop-ups

[AX.25]

Ah, backticks and escape sequences. It can't be good, I would suggest you try it first.

Opt-out -- DENIED!

[Saeger]

What I'm wondering is what happens in the unlikely event that a significant minority of pissed-off 'consumers' decide to opt-out of being brainwashed by advertisers?

Will the "mental engineers" honor the wishes of these consumers to be left in peace? Or will they take drastic measures to recapture their audience by technical countermeasures?

I'm still awaiting the first brain-dead website to require some kind of IE-only plugin that, for instance, "shuts off content" if it can't verify the presence of banner pixels onscreen. There's probably better ways to force eyeball burn-in (getting image of Gelfling's strapped to a chair in the Dark Crystal)... but I'm not going to waste much thought on it.

Personally, I block all ads, cookies, popups, etc., except from those sites I trust, and I don't feel I'm "taking advantage" of a free service simply because I choose to think for myself instead of being subjected to annoying influence (aka: advertising). Oh, and when Retinal Scanning Displays finally hit the market, I plan on filtering out real-world ads too (a roadside Coca-cola billboard might be overlayed with a something that says, "Sugar water is not a lifestyle!") :-)

X10 ads annoy me the most because...

[cliffiecee]

WTF does a smiling or half-naked woman have to do with a "spy" camera? It's like they're using my sexual preference to catch my eye just long enough to acknowledge their silly product.

Newspapers and magazine...

[Paelon]

are filled with ads. Open up any newspaper, and take a look at how much of each page is advertising. Probably 1/2 or more of each issue. As much as it sucks that advertising is coming to the web, IMO it's still not nearly as obtrusive as print ads which take up the first 17 pages of a magazine.

Outrage that things aren't like they were 2 years ago is pretty futile. VC isn't paying the bills anymore (for most sites), and I'd rather see an X10 ad than see the site go under. The only thing that bothers me is that I don't think pop-ups are any more effective at enticing buyers than banner ads. Skyscrapers which run down the side of the entire article are IMO the most eye catching.

Re:Newspapers and magazine...

[Mr. Slippery]

Open up any newspaper, and take a look at how much of each page is advertising.

Which, you will note, does not pop-up in front of the page you're trying to read, nor fall out the back so that when you close the paper you're left with a mosaic of little cards to pick up, nor contains animations which distract your hard-working eyeballs from the text, nor puts little tags on you that ads in other papers can read.

Cease with the Flash, cease with the GIF animations, cease with the pop-ups and pop-unders, cease with the cookie abuse, and maybe - just maybe - it will be worth my while to turn off Junkbuster.

Of course, I still wouldn't be clicking on the ads...

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

Re:Newspapers and magazine...

[generic-man]

Newspapers aren't as guilty as this, but magazines have been doing this for a very long time. The "blow-in" subscription cards fall out of the magazine as you open it. Many advertisers pay extra to use super-thick paper or card stock, making the ad more likely to stick up and harder to avoid. Of course, I'll stop reading magazines the day I have to peel an ad sticker away from an article I want to read.

Sometimes It Takes Two

[LISNews]

Lately I found for Windows a combination of Guidescope and PopUpKiller do a great job of blocking out:
Cookies, popup windows, regular ads, and moost other things I'd rather not see.
It takes some tweaking to get them to play nice together, but they do the job quite well.

Another reason to hate Microsoft

[MxTxL]

Another form of advertising that i've seen recently that is even WORSE than the X10 popups is the adverts they have on MSN Zone! On this site, everytime you transition between major pages, instead of taking you to the target page, you end up at a page that says "This section brought to you by..." and has a half page ad. You have to click on a link to finish going to the target page. It SUCKS!!!!

One more note on iCab ...

[Frater 219]

(Yah, following-up to one's own posts is perverted ....)

The iCab folks keep a list of "10 features you don't find in other browsers", which would make an excellent checklist for other alternative browsers looking to add user-empowering features. Besides its abuse-blocking abilities, other iCab features that stand out include its built-in HTML validator; its recursive download manager (something like a GUIfied wget); and its "Link Manager", which summarizes all the links on a page and is quite useful when using any of the spammier search engines.

Re:One more note on iCab ...

[infiniti99]

You should check out the changelog for Konqueror in KDE 2.2beta1. There is a plugin for HTML validation, a recursive downloader for offline browsing, and a DOM tree viewer (not exactly a "Link Manager", but maybe more powerful?).

Also present in 2.2 is the option to be prompted whenever a site attempts to use popups (the old popups checkbox has been replaced with 3 radio buttons: Allow/Ask/Deny). This way you can still have popups when you need them, and just click "No" whenever you don't. A ~15 line patch by yours truly. Especially funny is when you get the prompt after closing Konqueror. Pesky onunloads! *click*

-Justin

My solution - albeit not too effective.

[marcop]

Don't buy from the companies... I was going to buy an X10 product because they are rather cool. But after being bombarded every day by their adds I decided to voice my opinion with my money and not buy anything from them.

I would write them to let them know my decision but I fear that they might send me SPAM afterwards.

Web advertising eats itself

[sakusha]

This is a classic death spiral. The advertisers are losing the attention of the audience. So they try stupid stunts to grab your attention. All this is going to do is piss off more people to the point where they'll take action against the ads. And the advertisers will try even more stupid stunts. It's futile. Ads will always display on a CPU that is under the user's control, and if you piss them off, they'll exert that control.
My particular favorite way to eliminate ads is to use your hosts file to alias the adserver's domain to 127.0.0.1, here's a web page that explains how to do it:
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/spam/adblock.s html

Webwasher is your friend

[burbilog]

Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).

Webwasher does that. Also it has a lot of useful options like killing popups and filtering iframes...

sneeking popups into you home page...

[nothng]

Apparently some web site is changing peoples startup page so that every time they open thier browser they get a lovely popup add. This of course makes who ever their start page look terrible if the user isn't very internet savvy. I had this problem a couple of days ago and noticed when slashdot loaded it wasn't loading slashdot first, instead i saw this:
http://216.130.216.24/s.php?=slashdot.org

not sure how that got there, i certainly didn't do it, and i don't think slashdot would be the right consumer group to advertise herbal viagra so I'm going to go out on a limb here *sarcasm* and say it's not slashdot either. I don't think it was any software I installed since I haven't installed anything in quite some time so it must be a website doing this.

hmmmmm could it be http://pythonvideo.com behind this???

Pythonvideo Inc (NETBLK-PYTV-BLK-3A)
107 Atlantic Ave.CA
US

Netname: PYTV-BLK-3A
Netblock: 216.130.216.0 - 216.130.217.255

Coordinator:
Chen, Wen (WC269-ARIN) wen@webkrew.com
416 534 5000

Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

NS.PYTHONVIDEO.COM 216.130.196.20
NS.PYTHONVIDEO.COM 216.130.212.11

Record last updated on 01-Jun-2001.
Database last updated on 5-Jul-2001 23:03:10
EDT.

30 days hack and more..

[ldopa1]

Yes, the thirty days hack works (up to 180, based on my testing). Here is a link if you're too lazy to figure it out yourself..

Also keep in mind that by talking about it, you're admitting that the advertising works! Whoever it was who said "my mindspace is not for sale" is wrong. It's free - your participation in this conversation gives the lie to your words.

That said, there are some points to consider:

1) If we don't let them advertise, the websites will become pay, or worse, disappear.

2)If you're really adamant about the ads going away don't click on them!

3) Honestly, is it that big a deal? Frankly, how hard is it to click once? You're doing it all day! The only ones that really annoy me are the ones that take the "spam the respawn room" strategy.

My favorite way of blocking pop ups

[CokeJunky]

Konqueror has this wonderfull little check box "disable window.open" on it's javascript tab.

That pretty much kills any and all pop-up adds, and that feature alone makes Konqueror my browser of choice some days. Funny how none of the commercial browsers would have that feature which can save one alot of anoyance. I hate it when I am tricked to follow a link that starts a never ending barage of windows that open untill your browser crashes or the cows come home.

shut it off for 3000 days

[punkrider]

click here to shut off the pop up until Tue Sep 22 12:38:09 2009, and it even redirects you to a friendly page instead of more x10 crap. By 2009 I think they should be sufficiently out of business. ;)

Heh, actually with the trend of the market today, I probably could've set it for 60 and I would've been fine.

Re:shut it off for 3000 days

[Speare]

By 2009 I think they should be sufficiently out of business. ;)

Since they've been in business for over twenty years already (first product under X10 name was in 1979), that's probably not as likely as you'd think. The web just gave them a new way to reach a wider audience than the Radio Shack class of geeks.

Re:Thank God for hosts files...

[Tim Macinta]

you'll never get hit with the ads, though you'll still have a harmless window with a 404 error to close.

Hmmmm... the 404s shouldn't be too hard to fix. Just set up an Apache virtual host on your machine for "ads.x10.com" and have it redirect all 404 errors to a page that contains some Javascript which closes the current window (perhaps after checking to make sure that you are on the first page in the window's history so as not to inadvertantly close non-pop-up windows). Of course, you'll have to add an /etc/hosts and Apache virtual host entry for each host you want to block, but that's not too big of a deal (or if it is too big of a deal, you could run an instance of Apache on it's own IP address, like 127.0.0.2, and redirect all requests to that Apache instance to the window closing script regardless of the requested host).

Mozilla does not allow on site by site basis.

[Anonymous Coward]

On *some* sites, I want all java/javascript enabled. On others I want it all disabled.

Re:Mozilla does not allow on site by site basis.

[jacobito]

With some manual tweaking, you can disable popup ads for specific sites. (I assume the converse would work, too)

For instance, my user.js looks something like this:

user_pref("capability.policy.strict.sites", "http://ads.x10.com http://popup.msn.com");
user_pref("capability.policy.strict.Window.open", "noAccess");

Despite what the release notes say, user.js seems to be a better location for custom settings, because configuration changes made through the UI will often cause the entire prefs.js file to be overwritten.

See the Configurable Security Policies document at Mozilla.org for more info.

Of course, it would be nicer to disable ad sites on the fly, as they are encountered. If I knew a bit more about how Mozilla worked, I could probably do it myself, but I'm lazy, and Mozilla documentation is still a bit scattered. For all I know, it might be possible to do this sort of thing now with Galeon, but I haven't tried the latest release.

-jacob

Re:Mozilla does not allow on site by site basis.

[Dahan]

Yeah, Mozilla's configurable security policies rock :)

Not ad-related, but another annoyance is Javascript that mucks with the status bar (especially the scripts that display some scrolling message there). To disable that, use:

user_pref( "capability.policy.default.Window.status", "noAccess");

Negative Effect on Advertisers and Hosts

[asv108]

Is it possible that pop-up ads cause more harm than good for the potential advertiser? I always had a positive opinion of X-10 products untill I started seeing pop-up ads everytime I check out nytimes.com . Are there any studies that have compared the loss of potential sales and brand opinion with the actual gain in sales due to pop-up ads? What kind of gains are pop-up advertisers seeing in click through rates when compared to banner ads?

Opt-out

[n8willis]

Great. Now, if only there was a way to opt-out of seeing the Food Network's "Iron Chef v Flay June 3" ads, more than a month after the show....

Nate

From X10's site...

[Stiletto]

In the last year many different sizes and styles of ads have been used to try to add more value to the advertiser. X10.com is simply using a new form of advertising. Please try to understand that this type of advertising is what keeps the Internet enjoyable as it pays for operational costs behind the sites you enjoy visiting for free.

Oh that's funny... The Internet has always been enjoyable to me. Long before people started advertising on the web.

These people are delusional. Do they really think they are keeping the Internet enjoyable by plastering it with pop-ups and banner ads?

Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[veddermatic]

How many of you notice TV ads?? You either have grown to ignore them (by petting the dog, taking a leak, getting another beer, whatever) or you are so quick on the remote you only catch only a second of them.

Banner ads? I don;t know about you, but my brain quickly took measures to block out any annoying animated GIFs that are 468x60... I don;t "see" them on pages anymore (which is one of the reasons we moved to pop-ups, yes?)

Have no fear, us humans will quickly adapt and develop the Alt-F4 reflex (or Command-W or CTRL-W reflex, depending on your OS of choice =) and pop-up ads will go the way of the Dodo as well.

Just worry about what comes next..... =)

==============

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[northernlights]

Just worry about what comes next..... =)

Exactly. I made a longer post below on this, but I can guarantee you that unless we have more information on users (and can thus eliminate annoying ads) we will see a lot more of these ads.

I run the internet department at an large asian ad agency, and we develop ads in what I consider to be a user-friendly manner.

We do produce campaigns with popup ads, particularly since these ads get a much higher response that banners. However, I refuse to bombard users like x10. We place these ads only on sites on which there is a strong correlation between user interest and the product/service being offered.

Most importantly, we use cookies to identify whether or not you have already seen the ad. If the ad has been served to you once, we stop and serve it again only after several days have passed, and you will see this ad a maximum number of times (3-5 over a couple weeks). We achieve very high success rates with this, and I am confident that we aren't annoying too many people. (hmmm... cookies do have a good side).

And before I get any knee jerk reaction to pop ups in general, please remember that ads pay for content. Need I remind us all of Suck, Feed, and Automatic Media?

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[Saeger]

...please remember that ads pay for content...

No, ads don't pay for content (directly); mindless people are manipulated by ads into paying for content (indirectly). Thus, having the mind in the first place to opt-out harms no one.

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[Tackhead]

> We do produce campaigns with popup ads, particularly since these ads get a much higher response that banners.

How many of those clickthroughs are real clickthroughs and not just users who don't know about Alt-F4 to close a window, and "clicked" on your ad because they missed the upper-right-hand corner of the window as they tried to close the pop-up?

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[northernlights]

That's a good question. Same one our clients ask.

We monitor not only click through rates (which is a pretty crude measurement tool for campaign for success, actually) as well as conversion rates.

A conversion is defined differently for different destination sites. For example, if the destination is an e-commerce site then the conversion might be a purchase, though usually we measure different degrees of activity (click through, browsing, e-mail alert sign up, purchase, etc.)

So if someone clicks through accidentally, and then they pretty much immediately leave the destination page, they don't count for much. If they click through and actually hang around for a while, then we measure them.

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[northernlights]

Your point is partially valid, but there is a different facet to this situation.

By the fact that you read /. and constructed a succinct, well written counter point, I assume intelligence on your part.

You thus represent a very appealing target market. Let's call this market the "geek" market for the time being. We have many challenges addressing this market, since I know that the geek market often opts out of ads. I also am aware that they often turn ads off. But nonetheless, you represent an intelligent consumer group that is the target of a lot of advertising. It's not just for "mindless people". Take a look at the ads at the top of this page, unless you've blocked them. The nice thing about these ads is that they are relevant to the /. community.

I discovered thinkgeek from a banner ad on slashdot, and now go there regularly to peruse the handheld gps units, among other items. This was useful and relatively unobtrusive, and aimed at an intelligent community. I think this is a great example of positive advertising.

In summary, not all advertising is manipulation. David Ogilvy once made a famous (if not somewhat sexist by today's standards) quote: "The consumer isn't a moron. She is your wife." His sincere point was that you should treat the consumer with respect.

The cluetrain manifesto lists a lot of advertisers as signatories. Not all advertisers disrespect consumers. I am both an advertiser and a consumer. I try to create advertising that I wouldn't mind seeing.

And finally, keep in mind that overt manipulation via the click through isn't the only goal. Branding is as much a goal as traffic for many advertisers.

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[Saeger]

If not for the inclusion of 'cluetrain' in your reply, I might have dismissed your post as just another ad exec type rationalizing and apologizing for his job. ;-)

However, the cluetrain signatories still represent a minority slice of humanized companies willing to treat people like something other than categorized cattle with credit cards. The majority will continue to spy and track down us cashcows in their black helicopters -- dissecting us, seeking maximum exploitation potential.

And so, I will continue to despise, and block out, the majority of the evil-because-evil-works marketers of the world.

I'm probably a little atypical, but I just can't stand the idea of allowing myself to be mentally engineered by marketing weasels who know too much about me.

Ideally, there should be a truly anonymous way of indicating personal preferences in order to make ads relevant......but that will never happen because it's not as profitable as some snake being able to ferret out the knowledge that the cow sitting behind IP 1.2.3.4 with cookie ABCD911 visted Do-I-Have-The-Clap.com, and then informs all affiliates to increase the exposure of venereal disease ads. At least in the real world you could drive across town (or state lines) to fix a drippy dick (without having to see VD billboards), and no one would be the wiser. Zeroknowledge.

Re:Even if they stay, popup ads will fade....

[Hammer]

we develop ads in what I consider to be a user-friendly manner

I take it that this means using a maximum of 256 bytes of my dialup connection. Ooh, noooo you are pumping 10 seconds worth of animated GIF down my bandwith :-((

we use cookies to identify whether or not you have already seen the ad

And those cookies are not designed so that you can get info on my surfing patterns. Yeaahh riiiiight

We do produce campaigns with popup ads

There is one of the few reasons I see for reintroducing capital punishment...

No thank you. Until the day banner ads use little bandwith and offer lots of privacy protection Junkbuster will sit on my HTTP pipe.

CookieCop Plus

[Alien54]

on My windows boxen I use CookieCop Plus, which not only allows blocking of cookies, but also allows you to block the content from entire sites. And the Source Code is Included!

Of course, almost any proxy server, firewall, etc. could likely be set up that way.

But it is nice to see the popup try to launch, and then watch it go away.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

OmniWeb for OS X

[jeffehobbs]

OmniWeb has the best "annoying pop-up window defeating implementation" I've ever seen -- there's a preference to block all pop-ups except those initiated by the use clicking a link. Every browser should have this. OmniWeb rules.

~jeff

Turning off JavaScript in IE

[Midnight Thunder]

There is a way if you know what Mircosoft calls it. You have to go into the internet security settings of IE and then disable Active Scripting. Why on Earth can't they call it JavaScript like everyone else?

Re:Turning off JavaScript in IE

[Rick the Red]

Why on Earth can't [MSIE] call [Active Scripting] JavaScript like everyone else?

Because it's more than Javascript. It's also ActiveX, and extremely odious invention that (among other things) allows ActiveX script writers access to all the files on your Windows PC, including the Registry. Since Javascript is everywhere and ActiveX is nowhere, Microsoft set up the World's Default Browser to cripple most web sites (by turning Javascript off) if you dare to enhance your personal security by disabling ActiveX. If you try it, you'll regret it (i.e., you won't have the same Javascript-enhanced web experience as before you made your PC safe) and turn it back on just for the Javascript, thus enabling the tech MS prefers.

The solution, of course, is to use a browser that doesn't know about ActiveX, let alone enable it by default. Unless you agree that Javascript does little to enhance your web experience and you want it off as well, you cannot go where YOU want to go with MSIE.

Re:Turning off JavaScript in IE

[mcjulio]

Um, no it's not. Not to take away from your rant, but ActiveX security settings are broken out separately. It's called Active Scripting because VBScript and Javascript are both supported by the browser.

Re:Turning off JavaScript in IE

[Rick the Red]

Um, no it's not. Not to take away from your rant, but ActiveX security settings are broken out separately. It's called Active Scripting because VBScript and Javascript are both supported by the browser.

Oops. You're right and I'm wrong. I knew it was one of those MS-centric "extensions" -- ActiveX, VBScript, what's the difference? They're both odious security holes!

Thanks for the correction.

Re:Turning off JavaScript in IE

[Rick the Red]

Oh, come on, moderators! If you think admitting mistakes is baiting flames then someone should take away your moderation rights.

x10.com = evil

[SomeOtherGuy]

You think the pop up ads are bad -- try actually ordering something from this company -- your mailbox will be bombarded every time they have a sale, change a price, or anything......Ouch -- talk about "carpet advertising" .(Like "carpet bombing" from the B52's). I would be scared to purchase anything else from them in fear that I may add to the war chest that allows them to advertise on virtually every web site know to man.

the bedroom

[bobalu]

You missed the line about installing them in the bedroom?

Here's a parody of the X10 popups

[ch-chuck]

Right here

I am surprised that no one has mentioned this.

[Glowing Fish]

Most fascinating I think is the comparison between these ads and gangland street violence: "They?'re like drive-by shootings," said Kipp Cheng, interactive news editor at Adweek. "Consumers will not put up with that"

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? I see one thing in common between drive by shootings and pop ups ads, that they are unexpected and unpleasent. But having a little shiny thing advertising a visa and having a bullet cripple or kill you are very, very different things, both in scale and in intention.

If I was going to compare pop up ads to anything that is annoyingly found in everyday life, it would probably be dogshit or those damn sugar ants...

Re:I am surprised that no one has mentioned this.

[ackthpt]

Well I thought this was a bit overstating, too:

"So Tiny It Fits Anywhere: Front Door, Office, Nursery, Garage, Web - And More!" the ads practically shout, alongside a photograph of an attractive young woman in a come-hither pose.

"They're a nuisance," said Jason Fox, managing director for production at Columbia Digital Knowledge Ventures, an arm of Columbia University. "They're very creepy, and they're slightly pornish. Everyone finds them very obnoxious."

I've seen the ad (had to double check on Yahoo news to make certain, research, y'know ;) and ok, it's a pretty girl, not exactly a come hither look, but I suppose she's supposed to be the subject of putting that tiny little cam anywhere? Um. Ok, if it's put that way and I've been exposed to American TV (i.e. friends or 70's show) for at least a year the mind can put 2 and 2 together. What's at fault tho, the ad or the lewd inuendo of regular TV?

Spam's more of a drive by offence, since their ID/plates are probably bogus and they're up to no good anyways.

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

Re:I am surprised that no one has mentioned this.

[kindbud]

Pop up ads are the equivalent of having your reading of a newspaper article interrupted rudely by a co-worker who grabs the paper away from you to show you this weekend's sale at Fry's.

Re:I am surprised that no one has mentioned this.

[mandolin]

You are correct. Consumers will put up with whatever we give them damnit.

Now, watch our ads. Or, we'll kill you.

Most fascinating I think is the comparison between these ads and gangland street violence: "They?'re like drive-by shootings," said Kipp Cheng, interactive news editor at Adweek. "Consumers will not put up with that" (...) Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous?

You Opt Out, They Still Track You

[IHateEverybody]

While it's nice that the X-10 provide a way for you to temporarily opt out of their popup ads, they still track you (even if it's only indirectly) through that same cookie that tells them not to popup their ads. That's how they know the thirty days have expired. So what's preferable, annoying popups or being tracked by company you find so annoying that you've opted out of its content? Is Junkbusters a good alternative?
Or do you just want to shut off Javascript and be done with it?

But those X10 ads are so sad

[zrk]

The blond isn't very attractive, and she looks like she's smiling under gunpoint (aka not happy). These are just my opinions, and if you disagree, you're just plain wrong .

Public Outcry Over Konqueror Ads

[chocolateboy]

Fortunately, Konqueror allows you to disable popups with a single checkbox.

But does it allow you to remove these annoying pop-in Konqueror ads from Slashdot?

WWWOFFLE

[JimR]

I used to use WWWOFFLE with a configuration like:

replacement = /local/images/ad-killer.gif
http://*.doubleclick.net/*ad/*
http://images.slashdot.org/banner/*
etc.

to kill image based ads.

Which was great until I switched to using Mozilla as my browser of choice. (WWWOFFLE doesn't seem to like Mozilla's HTTP/1.1 requests - which is fair enough as it's an HTTP/1.0 proxy - and sometimes pages are truncated).

Which is a pity, 'cos WWWOFFLE has lots of other cool features too. Like de-animating GIFs, removing <BLINK> tags, demoronising MS non-Latin1 characters. (As well as being quite a cool caching/offline proxy).

Re:WWWOFFLE

[snake_dad]

replacement = /local/images/ad-killer.gif
http://images.slashdot.org/banner/*

Why kill these? They help keeping /. alive, and free (both meanings)

Re:WWWOFFLE

[JimR]

Why kill these? They help keeping /. alive, and free (both meanings)

Well (and that was just an amusing example - I didn't single out slashdot for special attention), I used to kill all annoying ads that animated or significantly slowed down Web surfing.

Now I've got a Cable Modem connection I've stopped sensoring ads for the second reason.

Many ways, none perfect

[dschuetz]

I've been mucking about with ad blocking for a while. Some problems:

• Flash ads - haven't found anything that reliably removes the big flash ads from Excite or ZDNet or such.
  
• Popups - sure, I can get rid of most of 'em, but there are a lot of sites now with little pop-up "informational" boxes that break once I've filtered them out.
  
• Clever site programmers - some sites are actually splitting their javascript into multiple strings, concatenating them somehow at the browser, then "eval"ing them. Hard to catch those, as they've been stealthed past any keyword filter
  

I've tried Junkbusters, WebWasher (nicest interface, but it keeps forcing automatic browser config. and that breaks FTP for me), and Proximitron. Right now, I'm using WebWasher chained through Guidescope (follow-up to Junkbusters).

The big problem is that there are a lot of sites with valid (though usually surperfluous) uses for both flash and popups. If I turn them off globally, I lose some functionality. People talk about browsers (konquerer, IE 6, whatever -- I don't remember 'cause none of them are what I use) that allow, for example, popups only in response to a user action. That's great. Wonderful. Can somebody please roll that into webwasher so I can use it with ANY browser?

I guess what it comes down to is every time I try to block stuff, the advertisers either get more clever, or I end up cursing my annoyance with ads whenever I have to temporarily disable the proxy to use a feature I actually want.

*sigh*

Re:Many ways, none perfect

[Tackhead]

> Flash ads - haven't found anything that reliably removes the big flash ads from Excite or ZDNet or such.

When do you really want Flash content?

When you're downloading that .swf file for "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", or some funky animation on a web page.

Tell your browser to regard its MIME-type as "Unknown/prompt/save". It'll ask for a plugin. Tell it "no, you can't have the plugin". Voila, no more flash. If you actually want to see the Flash file (very rare occurrence), just download it and play it later.

Block the ad servers altogether. Turn off image-autoload. (When was the last time a picture on ZDnet or CNet was actually related to the article? ;-)

Re:Many ways, none perfect

[Deluge]

Can somebody please roll that into webwasher so I can use it with ANY browser?

Write them an email - I have. WebWasher is just golden, there's only a couple of sites that I have to disable it for on a regular basis (Windows Update being one). I also suggested that they add hotkeys so you can CTRL-ALT-whatever when you're browsing to temporarily turn the standard filter. It's a nitpick, but I find it annoying having to reach for the mouse, even if all it takes is a click on the systray icon.

---

Re:Many ways, none perfect

[Inoshiro]

* Flash ads - haven't found anything that reliably removes the big flash ads from Excite or ZDNet or such.

I've found that deleting or not installing Flash helps 100%! I've yet to see a Flash ad since I removed that code from my browser. Why should I use a format that is closed and lacks proper ACLs (like cookies on browsers other than Mozilla/Konq).

* Popups - sure, I can get rid of most of 'em, but there are a lot of sites now with little pop-up "informational" boxes that break once I've filtered them out.

* Clever site programmers - some sites are actually splitting their javascript into multiple strings, concatenating them somehow at the browser, then "eval"ing them. Hard to catch those, as they've been stealthed past any keyword filter


And these sites are fundamentally broken in my browser because I disable Javascript. Why? Because client/side scripting is stupid (why have my client trust some server code? Why have the server trust data given back by insecure clients?). All the sanity checks are just the same (if not more) even if you use "client-side" validation.

IJB + no Java + no Javascript means I get fast, good web content. No crap in the way of good ol' XHTML 1 + CSS2 content (with images scattered about for flavour).

--

Re:Many ways, none perfect

[AnarchoFreak_00]

I've found that deleting or not installing Flash helps 100%! I've yet to see a Flash ad since I removed that code from my browser. Why should I use a format that is closed and lacks proper ACLs (like cookies on browsers other than Mozilla/Konq).

That might be great for you. But some people want to use the view sites that use flash for reasons other than adverts.

A better solution is for Macromedia to remove the option for designers to remove the 'stop' and 'mute' options etc.. when one right clicks on a flash object.

Beat X10 with their own link!

[JTFritz]

X10 provides the following link: http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=30&PAGE=htt p://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm that sets a 30 day opt-out. Modify the DAY parameter to be 3000 and you will never see them until 2009!

http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=3000&PAGE=h ttp://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

Re:Beat X10 with their own link!

[kindbud]

Wrong. Try it. 30 days is the max opt-out, despite any large numbers you might care to try.

You're like the fifteen-zillionth person I've seen suggest that, without even trying it first.

Popup windows violate Document/Container relation

[Minstrel78]

I've recently switched to Mozilla for all of my browsing since almost every news site I go to, with the exception of Slashdot and a few others, now persistantly pop up ad windows. IE wouldn't let me easily disable popups and leave other JavaScript running (and JavaScript is useful for some things).

Anyway, I believe that allowing the document to access properties of the document container is a mis-feature. Allowing a document to manipulate the host UI to open, close, resize, and otherwise manipulate windows breaks down the understood relationship between document and container/viewer, and should never have been implemented.

Now, with Mozilla, I can edit JavaScript's functionality to my heart's content, thus repairing the language's feature set to make it more sane. Yay!

Tabbed interface.

[Junta]

These ads are just another reason why I like the tabbed interface of galeon and skipstone. The ads do not intrude by popping up over your current page. Also, pop-under ads become obvious immediately, and you can close a tab without even looking at it, if you know you don't want to see an unsolicited popup, while still allowing pop-ups, though I have never seen a solicited pop-up, but they must exist somewhere :)

Re:Tabbed interface.

[gss]

Exactly! While I've never used galeon or skipstone, I always wondered why netscape and IE don't have tabs. This is the UI I want... If a popup appears then a tab would show up and if you wanted to look at it you could click on it, if you hit the back button or go to another link that tab would then disappear. Maybe someone from the Mozilla group is reading this.

Re:Tabbed interface.

[specktater]

Galeon has a little "x" on the right side of the tab that you can click to close. It's really an amazing browser.

Speck

IT'S TOO LATE!

[Robber Baron]

Must...buy...X10...camera!

Rational to not block ads

[bartle]

This point seems to have not been made, so I guess I'll have to make it. On the surface it may seem like a good idea to block all these ads but think about the repercussions if you do. All of the sites you frequent won't be getting any money from advertisements when you visit them.

The problem is that the people who know how to block ads are the most technical savvy. I don't know to what extent the balance has been already shifted, but as we use these utilities we're making it less profitable to run a geek oriented site than a general one. In other words, if an advertiser can't advertise to us, they're just going to focus all their advertising budget on other sites.

This concern may seem a tad too extreme to some of you, but it's the reason I don't run any ad blocking software. The sites that I frequent I want to do as well as possible, I'll put up with ads for their sake. Granted, there are probably some tricks that can be played to get around this (have the proxy download the pictures even if they're not shown), but we're just dealing with the tip of the iceberg. The Slashdot community is pretty focused on coming up with ways to make sure we can't be monitored or counted. Just think about the consequences before you wipe yourself off the map completely.

-can't have your cake and eat it to-

[northernlights]

We can all agree that x10 and similar annoying, "mass" internet advertising sucks.

Pay-for content is not the alternative. Subscription based content is not currently a successful online business model. The WSJ, Playboy, and a handful of others are the few exceptions. If /. started charging tomorrow for access, you'd see a very, very sharp drop in traffic. When I say 'sharp drop' I mean that traffic would essentially dry up. When micropayment infrastructure 'happens', this could change, but for the time being, ads are the only real alternative (if the content producers want to eat, feed their children, dogs, katz, etc.)

What is annoying about these ads is that they are ignorant of who you are, what you are interested in, and how many times you've seen the ad.

If you go to the record store, and the clerk says:

Hey dude! That new Offspring album just came out.

But you don't like Offspring, so you say:

Dude! I don't even LIKE Offspring. But you can give me that new Outkast CD.>

Unless your clerk is totally, totally stoned, or, alternatively, a complete moron (or works at Tower records, which is essentially the same thing), he will probably remember that you don't like the Offspring in the future and won't pester you with offers for "pretty fly for a white guy" singles. He also will not wander around the store offering you all the other Outkast CDs, since that would be annoying and counter-productive to making a sale (though he might introduce a new group similar to Outkast since you'd likely be interested).

My analogy is clear, I hope. The real problem is that these popup ads, indeed all online ads, are less intelligent that you're average record store clear (but, it must be said, more intelligent that tower records' clerks and the current US president).

So how do we make these ads more intelligent?

Easy. Let them track you. Make a nym if want, whatever. But face the fact that if you want 'free' content, you are going to have to accept advertising and will have to allow tracking unless you want to continue to receive annoying, irrelevant advertising.

And don't think that you can just keep on blocking these ads. If blocking becomes widespread, which it seems to be (particularly among attractive niche target markets like slashdot readers), the online ad industry will just find new, more intrusive ways of getting eyeballs and clicks.

Click...Oops!

[b0rken Nyetwork]

I wonder how many cams they've accidentally sold to computer newbies?

"Hey, I'm a firm believer in the concept of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."

E-Z and Phun anti-popup defense

[pjt48108]

Step 1: Identify and make list of the culprits
Step 2: Find a knowledgeable, accessable script kiddie
Step 3: Give list of offending pop-up servers to script kiddie.
Step 4: repeat and meditate on the following mantra: DDOS.... DDOS.... DDOS....

Of course, I note this for entertainment purposes ONLY...

EMAIL X-10 Corportate Officer

[whatisausername99]

George Stevenson
Founder and CEO
Mr. Stevenson has served as our chairman of the board since July 2000 and has served in the capacity of chief executive officer since our inception. He is the founder, president and a director of our affiliate, X10 Ltd., a Hong Kong-based company which, together with its affiliates, designs and manufactures home controls, entertainment and security technology products. He has served as the president of X10 Ltd. since 1978 and serves in the capacity of an officer and director of several of its affiliated companies and subsidiaries.

Alex Peder
President
Mr. Peder has served in the capacity of president and as a director since August 1999. From July 1996 to August 1999, he served as president of retail sales, one of three divisions of X-10 (USA), a wholly owned subsidiary of X10 Ltd. that provides sales, marketing and product distribution services for X10 Ltd. in the U.S. From June 1994 to July 1996, Mr. Peder served as vice-president of worldwide sales at Virtual i-O, Inc., a systems development and manufacturing company.
AlexPeder@x10.com

Wade Pfeiffer
Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Pfeiffer has served in the capacity of chief financial officer since July 1999. He also served as a director from August 1999 to July 2000. From January to July 1999, Mr. Pfeiffer was director of finance and operations for Definitive Stock, Inc., an online stock photography agency. From 1986 to 1998 he served in various positions with Ernst & Young LLP, most recently as a senior manager in the corporate finance division.
WadePfeiffer@x10.com

Jim Phillips
Chief Technology Officer
Mr. Phillips has served in the capacity of chief techonology officer since our inception and has served as a director since July 2000. From 1994 to 1998 he served as director of software engineering at System X-10 Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of X10 Ltd.
JimPhillips@x10.com

Legal issues with X10 cam ads.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

All the ads I see have some woman with a smile, and a hint you can put the ad "anywhere" or for "fun". Isn't clandestine taping of someone without they're knowing about it illegal? At least in places with an expectation of privacy? Could they be held accountable for encouraging ilegal activity?

Probably not. The ads are probably subtle enough (well not subtle, but they don't explicitly state anything illegal) that nothing could happen because of that.

Re:Legal issues with X10 cam ads.

[Zico]

Could they be held accountable for encouraging ilegal activity?

X10 cams don't take upskirt voyeur shots of Joan Rivers, people take upskirt voyeur shots of Joan Rivers.

And those people should be shot.

Cheers,

Re:Legal issues with X10 cam ads.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Thank you ever so much for that mental image. Now I must burn it out of my skull. Anyone have some Everclear and a branding iron?

This is just another arms race.

[MagikSlinger]

First the surfer strikes back with ad-blocking and simple browser configurations. Then the advertisers strike back with Java code that seeks out your ad-blocking software, disables it, then resets your browsers configurations. Surfers will then up the ante by using firewalls and java filters that spot the ad-code, but wait: the advertisers unleash their next generation of ads.

You innocently click on a site and laugh as you see your firewall happily report the Java counter-counter-measure has been stopped, but then you notice something's wrong with your firewall. The advertiser's website detected your counter-counter-measure and has responded with its own counter-counter-counter-measure. It procedes to hack your firewall, deletes your ad-busting software and changes your browser's executable so that you can only surf the web by going through the advertiser's site.

This goes on until surfers are using high-powered automatic assault rifles with teflon-jacketed "cop-killer" bullets to fend off the full marketing assault team busting down your door wearing flak-jackets and using Waco-style tactics screaming, "It's the world's tiniest camera! You must buy it!" Damn those conservatives on the Supreme Court for allowing marketers these liberties under First Amendment protection! But at least they allowed you to use your Second Amendment rights to defend yourself.

A hundred years later, civilization is in ruin. After the nuclear assault launched simultaneously by the Internet Advertising Bureau and the EFF, the world is reduced to rubble. In anger, everyone destroys their modems and Ethernet cards and a Great Burning goes up to punish those who brought the world to this. But somewhere, in a Utah monastary, monks work feverishly copying the last technological works of the 20th century: C++ User's Guide by Bjarne Stroustroupm, and Introduction to Berkley Sockets Programming. Will humanity be doomed to repeat this endless cycle of aggressive marketing?

Re:This is just another arms race.

[MagikSlinger]

Wow, I wasn't the only person in the world to remember Canticle to Leibowitz. (though I'm sure I'm not one of the ones left who can spell it)

ObGharlane: Canticle for Leibowitz

Ad Spoof

[WhamJack]

I found this spoof on the camera ad by ModernHumorist.com. I found it to be amazingly similar to the ad and the chocolate on the lady's face is priceless.
----------
If there were gods, how could I bear to be no god?

NY Times on Advertisers and Rectocranial Inversion

[Robotech_Master]

There's this really funny (and tragic) article in the NY Times (free registration required, yadda yadda, blah blah blah) that proves just how rectocranially-inverted these Internet advertisers are. The article talks about how much "better" ads are since advertisers started using new, larger ads.

Ms. Lyon said the new ad sizes were instrumental in getting [five well-known] designers to agree to the effort. "Before, you couldn't do as much with this medium," she said. "It's hard to jump up and down about a banner."

...

In that ad, which was designed by the agency J. Walter Thompson, visitors to Yahoo's front page saw birds flying from the banner ad at the top to another ad on the right-hand side of the page. There, the birds started pecking at bird seed, revealing an image of a Ford Explorer. When users clicked on the Explorer, the Yahoo page shook as the sound of an engine started. The page finally faded to white, then gave way to a full-size photograph of the Explorer.

"Users liked it a lot," said Murray Gaylord, Yahoo's vice president for brand marketing, "They said 'As long as you don't do this to me every page, all day long, this was fun.'"

Is it any wonder the Internet is so ad-ridden? The ads are being placed by people who are living in their own little dream worlds--worlds where people not only like being advertised to, they crave it.

I once thought that Pohl & Kornbluth's The Man Who Sold Venus (aka The Space Merchants) was just satire. Sadly, there's more truth to it than I realized.

--

Not in the long term...

[god_of_the_machine]

Your question is at the crux of the advertising business. What marketers have learned is that recognition is everything.

Nope, it's not everything. Perhaps it's everything when making choices between two apparently similar products (Tide vs. ABC) or alerting the public the availability of a new product (which X10 is to many people I'm sure). But as for me, and legions of others, I will not buy from X10 because of their marketing. I personally got an free X10 kit 2 years ago when they were advertising on /. I was actually quite happy with it. But their marketing techniques made me buy supplemental products from a competitor, SmartHome, which for me was unknown.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I doubt it. I don't think X10.com will ever be a successful large corporation because people associate their products with sleazy advertising that is aimed at enticing perverts to spy on women. Infact I think their advertising has actually hurt the overall market for X10-based products. Maybe I'm wrong -- I hope not.

-rt-

Re:Not in the long term...

[Logic Bomb]

No, you're probably right. The issue is one of degree (as it is in most things in life). Advertising can certainly be taken too far. And I do think (or hope) that in the end, most people's decisions will at least substantially take into account product quality. But I think you may overestimate people's attention to ads. I never knew, as your comment says, that X10's advertising is "aimed at enticing perverts to spy on women." I have NEVER given the content of one of X10's ads even a cursory examination. But I damn well know the X10 brand, and I know it has something to do with digital cameras. I would speculate that for most people, it's the same situation.

Re:Not in the long term...

[god_of_the_machine]

yeah, the "aimed at enticing perverts to spy on women." is mildly referenced in the article -- but what they do is say: "You can put this tiny camera anywhere" in big bold letters and list options including the bedroom. And of course there is a revealing pic of a busty woman leaning over. It's not outright -- but I have talked to several other people who have made the same connection, and apparently enough people agree for FoxNews.com to write an article focussed on them.

-rt-

Re:Not in the long term...

[Chagrin]

• But I damn well know the X10 brand, and I know it has something to do with digital cameras.

Actually, it has to do with home automation, not just digital cameras.

Unfortunately, you're forcing me to prescribe additional dosages of X10.com pop-up ads for this mistake.

Submitted long ago, plus extending the ban

[Quila]

Let's see, how long ago did I submit the X10 disabling story? Way back. I also brought up the possibility of editing that cookie to make the 30 days more or less permanent. I haven't had time to test this theory, so has anyone tried it yet?

Blocking pop-ups with mozilla 0.9.2

[mosch]

While you're not running mozilla, edit your prefs.js to say:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");

Then if you want to allow certain sites to open new windows, also add the lines:

user_pref("capability.policy.allowpopups.sites", "http://www.foo.com http://www.baz.org");
user_pref("capability.policy.allowpopups.Window.op en", "sameOrigin");

Mozilla's Configurable Security Policies document explains how you can create groups of sites with variable access to create new windows, use javascript alerts, etc.

--

Re:Blocking pop-ups with mozilla 0.9.2

[uigrad_2000]

While you're not running mozilla, edit your prefs.js to say:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open", "noAccess");

Thanks mosch. This is why I read slashdot. Occasionaly I come across comments like this that are really useful. Hope you're fortunate enough that a kindhearted moderator will see your useful post.

<ot>Now if I could just get https:// url's to work again. It was in 0.9.1, and is gone in 0.9.2! </ot>

Re:Blocking pop-ups with mozilla 0.9.2

[fanatic]

While you're not running mozilla, edit your prefs.js to say:

Like most things in mozilla, this works soemtimes and not others. Example: it works the first time I go to weather.com, but if I leave and go back (I think that's the sequence) a damn X10 popup appears.

note to X10: I will NEVER buy your fucking product. You suck big green donkey dicks.

--

Re:Blocking pop-ups with mozilla 0.9.2

[mosch]

Like most things in mozilla, this works soemtimes and not others. Example: it works the first time I go to weather.com, but if I leave and go back (I think that's the sequence) a damn X10 popup appears.

Nope, can't reproduce it. Perhaps the problem has been fixed? Surely you can point me at the bug ID that you filed when you discovered this behaviour, so I can see if it's closed.

--

Re:Blocking pop-ups with mozilla 0.9.2

[chez69]

create a file called user.js and put

user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.open ", "noAccess"); in there. mozilla will overwrite prefs.js when you do anything with preferences.

Hmm...

[broody]

So Mr. Kipp Cheng, does that mean that I can disable drive by shootings with the power of a check box?

They'll probably change their codes now

[Sebby]

Now that this has appeared on /., with everyone and their brother describing how to 'extend' the cookie, they'll probably go and change their cookie-checking codes now.

Best just to have your system resolve their address to localhost instead.

A windows only answer

[Archfeld]

is a cool FREE product called web washer, it controls cookies and allows you to do post and pre script blocking, redirect blocking as well as filters out ad banners you choose. The product will also prevent pop-up based on size :) No more pop-ups for this kid, I even turned it off to see the x10 ads..that sucks. The only ads I see on /. are the ones served by slashdot, any 3rd party domain banner shows up as broken. It is a great product :)

http://www.webwasher.com/

Re:Why can't I just disable "new window" in J-scri

[tjf]

That would screw up akamai-zed pages big time.. :-D

Easier solution: USe squid

[Convergence]

I use squid, its a caching proxy.

I have some filtering in it to remove 'crap sites', but for the most part, I just filter based on directory name or hostname. (so I filter off things with banner/clickme in the path, or in a directory called 'ads' or 'adverts'. etc.

It works well, Alost 25% of the HTTP queries made by netscape are blocked, with another 25% or so satisfied from the cache.

As I use a modem frequently enough, this makes my web-browsing experience much better.

Disable Java and run Guidescope

[Wirenut]

Just disable Java and run Guidescope, you'd be surprised how much more stable and enjoyable surfing is - especially on a dialup connection. I hate pop-up ads, but nothing brings me more joy than a box that pops up empty because the ad site was blocked by Guidescope. http://www.guidescope.com/home/

X10 Full of Sh*t

[Ratteau]

From a first glace at their cookie code, I would say they are full of shit. Although if Im wrong, someone will surely point that out (be gentle :)

- exp.setTime(tdy.getTime() + 1000*60*60*24)
- document.cookie = CookieN+"="+vr+"; expires="+exp.toGMTString()+"; path=/ ; domain=.x10.com";

Unless I missed something somewhere else, the timeout is being set here to 24 hours. Im on NT and cant see the DAY= in the cookie code but I suspect that DAY= may be referring to something else. In the cookie set on my system, there are 7 distinct sections, the one which this page seems to affect is called "x10removeads.dat" I set a local page up with exp.setTime(tdy.getTime() + 1000*60*60*24*3000) and ran it and it DID change some of the numbers, but I cant be certain of success. I ran a test with alert(exp.getTime()) and that number doesnt corellate with any in the cookie. Can anyone else with more cookie exp take this any farther?

Otherwise, I guess Ill find out Monday if this works.

Hell, why opt out for 30 days

[chris88]

when you can just /.'em.
Ahh sweet regardless of the fact it's only temporary.

TV ads do consume resources!

[Pyperkub]

Time is money, the cost of TV ads to you is the opportunity cost of the time you spent watching them.

(opportunity cost = what else you could have done in that time, e.g. say you could make $60/hr in that time, then 14 mins of commercials/hour cost you $14/hour you spent watching those commercials).

Re:TV ads do consume resources!

[Glytch]

No, it's not money lost. I get sick and tired every time I hear someone say that since you're not making money, it's costing you. No.

You're simply not making money. Costing you money is if you had to actually pay someone. Positive, neutral, negative. Very basic concepts, folks.

Honestly if a site grows that much

[Archfeld]

then set up a members area and charge for access if people won't pay then you are wasting your time, OR DOING IT BECAUSE you LOVE IT. We ALL know ADS don't work. The ad companies seem to thing that becasue they CAN measure hits that WEB ads should get them somthing more than TV ads, but they are sadly mistaken. TV ads have as bad or worse a view ratio, there is just no way for the companies to measure it so they eat the loss. Compare the return on a multi million dollar TV ad where 4/5th the people go to the restroom during, to the poor response of click-thru's and I bet they are very close. Someone sold the techno-idiots on the value of so-called targeted ads, which are in reality no different from TV ads, they just can't measure that.

Re:Honestly if a site grows that much

[rtaylor]

Banner ads DO WORK (when targetted). Clickthroughs of 10% on a targetted advertisement is achievable. The primary problem with banner ads is that they're not targetted. If they were, I'd never see an ad for linux because there's no way I'd ever consider following it. This makes ads on slashdot non-targetted. Targetted ads will often be placed on stores as a 'Heres something else that goes with what you just bought'. At one point Amazon was doing that one quite well -- to much success. Then they slacked off and suggested items don't make any sense :)

Re:Honestly if a site grows that much

[theblackdeer]

in this case, you're wrong. i worked at x10.com, and the different before and after the popunder ads is amazing. x10.com is making a pile of cash off sales with the ads.

Re:Honestly if a site grows that much

[Tony Shepps]

The primary problem with banner ads is that they're not targetted. If they were, I'd never see an ad for linux because there's no way I'd ever consider following it. This makes ads on slashdot non-targetted.

The ads are obviously targetted. It's you who is non-targetted.

Great Idea!

[waldoj]

I set it up as a pop-under ad on my sites.

blocking ads

[sashaf]

I use AdPurger. It integrates with IE and filters HTML instead of replacing banners with 1x1 image. Also it blocks pop ups. No ad banners on /. for me

Slashdot Hypocrasy

[throx]

Isn't it just a little hypocritical to be advocating removing links from someone's published web content (even if they are ads) when you cry foul at adding links to someone's published web content (smart tags)?

Re:Slashdot Hypocrasy

[Rytsarsky]

Agreed. It's the same thing... If you don't like ads, block them (pick a method), if you don't like smart tags, don't use them (pick a method). If you want to write a browser that displays everything backward, that's fine too.

Re:Slashdot Hypocrasy

[TheAwfulTruth]

Well to test that theory, I installed Web Washer http://www.webwasher.com and now it blocks the /. banner ads! I suggest everyone else do the same. (Or use the local host trick) Then we'll see if they're hypocrits or not :)

The same bunch makes the Radio Shack units...

[Svartalf]

Look closely, they're called X-10 controllers, even at Radio Shack. Even if you didn't buy them direct, you're still putting money in their pockets.

Re:The same bunch makes the Radio Shack units...

[MustardMan]

wrong, wrong, and WRONG. X10 is a standard. There are many companies which manufacture products which comply with said standard. X10.com just happened to be the first to register the website. They are far from the only manufacturer of X10 Products. In fact, I have found some models of switches and appliance modules to be far superior when they come from other companies. X10.com's stuff sometimes seems kinda cheezy and cheaply made

Re:The same bunch makes the Radio Shack units...

[theblackdeer]

you're both right. x10.com is a child company of pico electronics, which developed the x10 standard in the late 70's.

while x10 is a standard, x10(usa) is the largest north american manufacturer of x10 products. x10.com is a smaller company inside x10(usa).

leviton is the only serious competitor to x10 products right now. they make x10 compatible products, but x10(usa) and x10.com have control over the protocol (becuase dave rye, the founder, created it. he's the vice president of engineering for x10usa and x10.com).

that being said, there are some competing protocols. check hometoys.com, and homeautomationforum.com for some examples.

Re:Slashdot Hypocrasy(sic)

[stevenbee]

No, it isnt.

X10 Opt-out for IE

[merlin_jim]

Hello folks,

A co-worker of mine has a button on his toolbar to disable image loading in IE. He's already contacted X10 and told them he was going to develop a button to disable popups... but he's just been waiting to hear from some interested parties...

This button will probably disable Javascript, and act similar to a checkbox control (on/off behaviour at a button press)... if interested please e-mail him at bblatchl@inmar-inc.com and tell him you'd be interested in such a thing...

I already asked him, and he's fully cool with the 2000+ expected responses to this post, so be sure to e-mail him (he's standing beside me chuckling right now...). Especially if you know how to disable JUST pop-up code, rather than all JavaScript.

onLoad onClose

[rawg]

I would like to see a option to filter out the onLoad and onClose javascript. I use pop-ups in a lot of web applications, so I would like to keep that feature.

Does anyone know of a way to do this?
--
_|_

Re:onLoad onClose

[rawg]

Yes! I think I figured it out!

I added to my Mozilla prefs.js file:

user_pref("capability.policy.default.onLoad", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.default.onUnLoad", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.default.onClose", "noAccess");

And now I dont get them stupid onLoad popups!

--
_|_

Re:onLoad onClose

[rawg]

Blaaa, didn't work for the onunload, but I think its working for the onload though... it seems...
--
_|_

Does the cookie even work.

[davey23sol]

I went to the link, I got the cookie... then two click later I got another X10 add.

It wasn't the normal size, mind you, but it was clearly by X10. So is this idea: they'll put in a cookie that prevents ONE size of ad, but not all of them?

Wonderful... do I smell spam burning?

worst offenders

[jesser]

one of the worst offenders

Is X10 really the offender? Or are the offenders the sites that say
<script>window.open("http://ads.x10.com/?Z3d lYmNhbW5vd2h0bWwuZGF0"+Math.random()+">wcn000", ...);</script>?

Re:Slashdot Hypocrasy(sic)

[davey23sol]

In this case, isn't the party that makes the choice the point? If I make the choice to remove or ad something sent to my machine, then it seems okay to me. If there is a corporation somewhere that decides this for me without my consent, that's bad.

If it's my choice to not see something, fine... if someone else makes the choice for me, that's censorship.

How do eliminate pop up adds

[kupekhaize]

The Proximotron proxy filter will automatically remove these pop up ads from win* machines. Its also really configurable, and freeware. My favorite feature -- it lets you strip out blink tags from pages..

Re:Why can't I just disable "new window" in J-scri

[Pahroza]

OmniWeb for MacOS X allows disabling of images that aren't from the site they're shown on. Nifty feature.

Question for other /.er Webmasters

[pclinger]

Hello,

I'm a webmaster running a site that gets 7 million monthly pageviews. I've been running banner ads on my site for over a year and a half now trying to generate revenue, but it just never makes enough. That's why I personally have moved to popup ads - to get enough money to pay for my server, and hopefully sometimes get some more money that month.

What have other /. webmasters done to get revenue? Are there any of you out there getting decent money from ad agencies? If so, which ones? Have you been able to avoid using popups and still make good money? What other types of advertising would you suggest using on Web sites besides standard banners and popups (eg: opt in mailing lists, etc)?

Re:Question for other /.er Webmasters

[Legion303]

What have other /. webmasters done to get revenue?

I've done nothing. I vehemently oppose all forms of advertising on the web, and I'll be damned if I ever use them to make money off something I enjoy providing for free (actually, at my own expense). If you want to make money from your site, there are other ways to go about it than spreading your legs for the highest bidding advertiser.

-Legion

Blocking all ads

[alanjstr]

This has become pretty similar to previous Slashdot posts

Devil's Advocate...

[Diomedes01]

This will not be a popular opinion. Before I begin, let me say that I do not in any way advocate Microsoft's whole "Smart Tags" idea. With that said, how is what you folks are doing different? The advertisements (banners at least) are a _part_ of the web page. I bet that the people who were most vehement in their arguments against smart tags because they "change the content" of a webpage are also the ones who are altering pages by filtering out ad images. Those ads could be considered a part of the authors "presentation" of the page, and thus the way that the page should look is indeed changed. It may indeed be more pleasant, but it is not the intended result!

Ok, let the flames start rolling in... I just had to get that off my chest.


-------

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Saeger]

What if I mute my radio when Howard Stern re-runs his "personal" product endorsements?
What if I write in the margins of my textbook?
What if I cover the ads in the newspaper with my hands or a black marker?
What if I skip the commercials when watching a recorded TV show/movie?
...What if remove the ads from a webpage?

You're not a very good devil's advocate if you can't see that the end-user has the right to alter whatever he wants in his content, for his own fair-use.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is a third party, and should not alter someone elses content for you BY DEFAULT, but they still could and should enable people to do it themselves if they want.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[jchristopher]

No. Smart tags change and add to the publishers content, altering it to add links to additional sites. Filtering ads just removes part of the presentation. It's like covering your ears if someone is saying something you don't like. Smart tags is recording them, dubbing your voice over, and then walking around, playing the tape, and pretending it's unaltered.

Re:Webwasher is hella-lame

[burbilog]

windows only, and closed source. How satanic

Go and write one with the same quality, THEN say "lame". Or go and turn junkbuster "do it yourself" kit into something usable by non-programmer people. It's their choice to release software under their own license.

Old Navy

[DejaMorgana]

Ditto. Until they started their latest style of crappy "campy" ads, I thought of them as a decent low-cost Gap alternative. Now I just won't step inside them. I can't help feeling that if more people did this, we might have better TV, or at least better ads - which are about 30% of prime-time TV anyway.

ZeroKnowledge

[rjbrown99]

The solution to all of your problems is ZeroKnowledge Freedom. It supports regex expressions to disallow URLs of ads. I am almost 100% ad-free using it. So far, in about a month and a half of use, it has saved me from seeing 55,646 and has saved me 398870528 bytes worth of downloadable data that I didn't want in the first place. Oh, and add to the fact that it also allows you to manage your cookies on a per-profile basis (it creates "cookie jars" and you just switch to the right jar when needed) and it's a GREAT solution. I love it. Check out http://www.freedom.net.

Re:Just take a little coding

[SoulSeller]

Any chance you could "spread the wealth?"

FoxFoxFox see more Fox about Fox on Fox

[Guignol]

Woah ! now that's amazing
from the article
"They're a nuisance," said Fox(talking about ads)
And it's on Fox News !!!
at last !

JunkBuster

[Plix]

Stuff like JunkBuster has been around forever, and many scripts for IE (like Voyager 5000) also have this functionality, the only problem is that sometimes disabling all popups results in preventing you from opening up JavaScript popups that are integral parts of the site. The obvious flip side is that by using such features to "enhance" your visit, you are at the same time working against the site itself. As everyone knows the market is going to fuck, and people using pop-up disabling features/programs are just making the situation worse (that is, unless you are a porn site, then chances are your rolling in it).

Re:JunkBuster

[Oswald]

obvious flip side is that by using such features to "enhance" your visit, you are at the same time working against the site itself. As everyone knows the market is going to fuck, and people using pop-up disabling features/programs are just making the situation worse

I haven't searched hard, but this is the first mention I've seen here of this important point. However, I'd like to take a different tack and point out the simple fact that everybody who sees these ads seems to take one of two options: ignore them patiently or ignore them angrily. This kind of advertising will not sell any more product than banner ads because the internet isn't like tv or radio--it's like a magazine. Ads have to be targeted like a laser to have any effect.

Whether you Junkbust 'em or Konquer 'em or just close the damn things manually, they aren't going to save the business model that's depending on them. Get ready to lose a lot of sites in the relatively near future.

I have yet to see...

[Pope Slackman]

A pop-up window with an ad worth clicking.

Generally, when something pops up, it's gonna be:
a) pr0n (stupid pay site, of course)
b) credit cards
c) geoshitties/turdpod/analfire/etc
or
d) video cameras

None of which I want or need.
There will always be free content to peruse, simply because people like creating.

That said, there are some sites I would pay a small fee to read, provided I could view the site completely ad-free.

C-X C-S

The X10 whining is just a smoke screen

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the X10 ads are annoying, aren't they? The thing is, they're also nothing new. PORN sites have been doing pop up/pop under/trigger on close/whatever for years.

Of course, all these SUV driving yuppie husbands and wives are good little christians and NEVER EVER look at NASTY PORN. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

The truth is, they're annoyed to all hell by the PORN site ad methods, but they can't complain about them for fear of being found out by their white linen clean living christian friends. Jerry Falwell would not be pleased!

Enter X10. My GOD X10 uses the same ad techniques as PORN sites! I can vent my displaced anger of PORN SITE ADS at X10 instead, and Jerry Falwell will shake my hand and call me a good person!

Re:The X10 whining is just a smoke screen

[heff]

very good point.

I actually prefer these...

[SCHecklerX]

...to banner ads.

1. They can be disabled simply by disabling javascript
2. You can close them, so they aren't in your face as you try to read the article
3. They pop up under the window, so they aren't in your face when you open the page

What would be nice is if a standard was enforced whereby the window name for ads is always the same. Then you can keep that window around, minimize it, whatever, and all the junk will always go to it. Good compromise between advertisers and users.

Oh well. I can dream, right?

Konqueror can disable popups, but...

[OverCode@work]

...what about popup message boxes in general?

I for one do not want a popup message box every time Konqi can't reach a URL. Can't it just flash a message in the status bar or something?

I have a bunch of adservers blackholed in /etc/hosts. Every time Konqueror can't reach one, it pops up a message box to inform me.

Just one of my peeves with respect to modern GUIs. Anyone else share my thoughts on this, or feel strongly otherwise?

-John

Not really

[Ratteau]

It seems most people here are objecting to the opening of new windows, rather than the banner ads we've all come to pretty much see past. Those that block all advertising are in a very small minority.

If everyone were to filter out ads that created popups, the site go out of business. No advertiser pays for impressions any more - they pay for clickthroughs (and some are even only paying if a user stays a while and/or buys something). Ads that generate no clickthroughs will simply be cancelled by the site.

Quickest, easiest way yet to block popups!

[kb3edk]

[kb3edk@localhost]$ lynx

typo

[Ratteau]

If everyone were to filter out ads that created popups, the site would not go out of business...

And the new version of Konqueror....

[pjgunst]

....is even better. The Konqueror-team included an option similar to the cookie-settings: Konqueror can now ask you confirmation before opening the pop-up. Cheers to the Konqueror team for developing a not-so-bloated, extremely customizable browser for a great platform.

Easy/Fast way to disable any ads you want.

[anti11es]

Here is the easiest and fastest way to get rid of any ads that annoy you.

Linux: edit /etc/hosts

Make sure that your computer checks the hosts file before dns.

WIndows: edit c:\windows\hosts

add a new line like this:
127.0.0.1 [site that annoys you here]

Not only will you no longer see the ad from that site but you won't even connect to the site, saving yourself some bandwidth. With this method you also don't have to run any other programs or parse through the site's html looking for ads.

Re:Money

[SoulSeller]

Leave the Ad Revenue Generation to those who are willing to accept this crap... Me? I'll do without it.

The poor blighted user.

[twitter]

This kind of stuff makes me want to scream. Converting the net into a push media will destroy it.

It is good that people are waking up to the imposition placed on them, but I worry that they will just turn to the next bunch of scammers.

Email is a great example of what can happen. Two articles in the New York times just about made me cry. The first about people's inability to orgainze their mail focused on Outlook without noting that programs inability to notify the user about messages "filtered" into subfolders. The second touts a service that will take $10 a month from you to "forward" your email, as long as you keep your old ISP. What?! Email forwarding is part of the mail protocols and used to be a common courtesy. They don't do it to discourage users from moving. They can additionally argue that most of the mail is the junk that forced the user to want to move anyway. The user in these cases has been srewed out of technologicaly possible common coutesies and screwed relentlessly by spammers and are now forced to pay a monthly fee, all by people who are abusing a PUBLIC NETWORK. Then, a large number of them are forced to view all of this junk with a substandard mail browser that is able to destroy all of their files directly or indrectly through VBS viruses and a substandard OS.

I can imagine scammers setting up "sevice sites" that will, for a fee, remove adverts from content. I can also imagine "premium" browsers being sold to XP users that will remove all but MS sponsered adverts. Barf! The scum are feeding off the problems they create.

It's time to use this discontent and the US post office to sieze back the net. People should have a permenantly registered name, at no cost, from which they can serve as well as recieve mail. Private comunications should have the sanctity of snail mail, the protection the US government and encryption, and be absolutely uncensored and free.

yet another cute way to disable X10 ads

[fubob]

X10 technology is cool, but their ads are not. Here is another way to disable X10 ads to an arbitrary date. Just change the date as you wish. Example: http://www.x10.com/cgi-bin/search/search_index.cgi ?search=%3Cscript%3Edocument.cookie%3D%22PopUnder% 3D0%3B+expires%3D05-Aug-2038+19%3A44%3A14+GMT%3B+d omain%3D.x10.com%3B+path%3D%2F%22%3C%2Fscript%3E

Fox News? Did they mention...

[Catbeller]

Ah, Fox News? Then the pop-under ads were, of course, linked to the liberal deviousness of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. No doubt, ad revenue generated from the nefarious left-slanted ads are funneled to a Chinese bank account in Hong Kong, ultimately winding up in the pockets of one President Bill Clinton, Esquire. President Clinton will be derrogatorily referred to as "Bill" 85 times.

Sources for all of this were never mentioned, tho Matt Drudge and the Freepers were, as usual, jumping up and down screaming "ME! ME!!".

MS-NBC will pick up on the story, which in five minutes will then be carried on CNN. Later on CBS, Dan Rather and a ranking Republican will be discussing Dan Burton's new investigation of Clinton's involvement in Javascript corruption. Suspicious links to the "natural" death of SF's great Douglas Adams will also be raised, since Clinton was known to live in the same hemisphere the day of his death.

Fox News, home of the FairandBalanced reports.

Web-based advertising that nobody would mind?

[AnalogBoy]

I have to wonder.

First, banner ads - bad. OK, maybe. But they're okay by me. Look at the top of the screen, for crying out loud! (Those not using virgin, image enabled browsers need not reply.)

Next, Java Popups. Okay, now you're starting to get on my nerves.

Next, in-browser java windows. These are also acceptable, to me.

Next, Java popups of death (Hereafter referred to as JPOD's.). These bother me to no end, ya know, when i go do l33t stuff like w4ar3z hunting, or pr0n surfing. (Fer god sakes, newsgroups people. Most of them *are* ads, but they're free and you get to see what you're looking for.)

Next, pop-unders. Not nearly as bothersome as some of the others. I really don't mind.

Heres the reason i don't mind:

In a capitalist society, you need money. therefore, these websites - need money. Without money these websites may go away. Some of these websites have insufficent revenue stream to provide services on the web without some form of advertising.

My question:

What form of advertising would you people, as slashdot dro..err users accept? Banner ads irk some of you. Bigger banner ads piss off the rest of you to no end. How would you suggest non-retail companies get revenue off the web? Slavery is illegal (Well, usually.. try explaining that to my boss). Im sure none of you would work for free, but some of you would love to work for, say, slashdot. Somehow, I don't think hemos could get by showing leg on 3rd avenue and bringing Taco's cut back to him both.

I agree that having a chip implanted in your arm that flashes up 10 second ads in your brain every few minutes, or gives you one lucid dream a night about Tammy the Tampax superhero with leaky the wonder-pad might be a little much, but i don't quite think we're there yet.

(On a side note, personally, i would rather see ads targeted towards me than ones not. I'd rather see a ad advertising TLC's special on ramses the great than a condom advertisement about ramses.)

Just my $0.000000002

Slashdot something useful.
Management is not a tunable parameter.

Re:Web-based advertising that nobody would mind?

[Todd Knarr]

I wouldn't mind text or graphical ads on web sites, banner or box, where the ad graphic was kept reasonably light, say under 40K in size and the total size for ads was less than half the size of the non-ad part of the page.

I don't like ads that take longer to load than the page itself does. I'm looking for the information on the page, so keeping me from getting what I'm looking for is a sure-fire way to send me elsewhere. Ask any shopkeeper in the Real World whether it's a good idea to keep people from getting to the product in the store.

I don't like ads that track who I am and what sites I've visited. If someone physically follows me around all day writing down where I've been, he can expect a visit from the cops before too long.

I don't like ads that jerk control away from me by opening another window. I'm doing something, and that's just as rude as a stranger walking up to you, jerking you around and shoving their favorite screed in your face. Again, ask an RL shopkeeper whether this is a good way to treat customers or not.

I don't like ads that hide themselves. It makes me thing the people behind them feel they have to hide from me. I don't do business with people who I know are hiding things from me. What they're trying to hide might come back to bite me.

FINAL BSOD: The Screenplay

[Anonymous Coward]

Narrator [VO]:

Long ago, the War of the Browsi
reduced the world to a scorched
wasteland, and advertising
simply ceased to exist.

1000 years have passed...
Java, C++, and Visual Basic
have been rediscovered, and
high technology reigns...

But there are some who
would annoy the world by
reviving the dread invasive
force known as "popups."

Can it be that those in
power are on the verge of
repeating a senseless
and deadly mistake?

[Enter GAU, stage right]

GAU: Uawooo!

[Enter POPUP, stage center]

GAU: Ooh! Shiny, shiny, shiny!

[Enter FLASHING POPUP, stage off-center]

GAU: * has seizure *

[Enter seemingly endless stream of more FLASHING POPUPS]

GAU: * continues seizure *

[Enter FATAL EXCEPTION 0E, fade to BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH]

Online Ads versus Broadcast Ads

[kstumpf]

I have no problem with advertising as long as it is not intrusive. I understand advertising is vital for some internet companies, as it is for television and radio broadcasting.

However, television and radio broadcasts are passive media, and the internet is an interactive medium. You can change the channel or turn up the volume, but other than that, TV and radio require no input from you. When you see an ad, it simply appears, does its thing, and goes away.

When I come across an ad on the internet, very different things happen:

1) What I was doing is interrupted. I searched, I clicked, and now this ad has intruded into whatever action I was performing. I was not expecting an ad.

2) Resources are used. I have to request your ad (time), download your ad (bandwidth), store your ad in my cache (storage). TV inflicts no such overhead.

3) I am forced to act. Your ad popped up, and now I have to close it. I have to stop what I was doing to get rid of your ad.

You watch TV, but you use a computer. Ads can appear anywhere on your screen, be any size, be any shape, they may play sound, play video, or worse. A TV ad is always the same dimensions and you know what to expect.

Re:Online Ads versus Broadcast Ads

[mr3038]

Resources are used. I have to request your ad (time), download your ad (bandwidth), store your ad in my cache (storage). TV inflicts no such overhead.

TV vs. web isn't that simple. TV ad stoles my time (have to wait it end no matter if I'm interested in it or not), it takes my bandwidth (how do you think that video stream comes to your tv?). Granted that TV doesn't store stream, but you can use VCR(/TiVo or like) or disable browser cache to make things equal.

In fact TV ads are much worse than web ads because you can always close those pop up windows as soon as they appear or click stop button to stop animations (doesn't work for flash ads though). There's much software to filter incoming web pages to contain no ads. etc etc etc.

I think the difference is that because web is interactive media you expect it to do only what you've asked for; for example you click link, you expect browser to change page instead of opening ten new windows and playing some songs. Watching tv and seeing ending titles coming you immediatly expect to see some ads next so you change channel or close tv. In fact choise to not to see ads when using tv is always opt out (per ad!) instead of opt in (global!) in web (turn on javascript, java and images).
_________________________

Re:NY Times on Advertisers and Rectocranial Invers

[pubudu]

There's this really funny (and tragic) article in the NY Times (free registration required, yadda yadda, blah blah blah) that proves just how rectocranially-inverted these Internet advertisers are. The article talks about how much "better" ads are since advertisers started using new, larger ads.

I wrote to the NY Times about the fact that I have to close about 10 windows everytime I'm done reading the day's news, and the reply I got said I could disable repeated instantiations of the same ad, or the ads all together, but only if I let X-10 have permission to set cookies on my browser. That hardly seems fair.

The problem with having the option to opt out is that, in order to prevent intrusions on your privacy, you have to give up your privacy.

AdSubtract works well too

[Malcs]

And it's free, too.
http://www.adsubtract.com

It's real simple why pop-ups suck

[kindbud]

They are rude.

A pop-up ad is equivalent to your reading an article in the newspaper being interrupted by a passerby who grabs the paper away from you to show you this weekend's sale at Macy's.

If it's rude to grab my newspaper away from me to show me an ad, then it's rude to grab mouse/keyboard focus away to do the same thing. Both are equivalently rude acts.

My local merchants all tried that drive by service

[Junior J. Junior III]

Yeah, my local merchants tried that drive by shooting service... I told my dealer that if he kept doing drive-bys in my neighborhood I would just have to take my smack-addiction elsewhere. They've cut down a bit, but you know they just like to see what they can do with those well-oiled instruments they like to buy and show off...

Proof that IE does not exist for OUR benefit.

[whjwhj]

Think: If the folks who brought you Internet Explorer were truly committed to the needs of the folks who actually RUN Internet Explorer, there would already today be many user friendly features in the browser including:

• Javascript could be enabled/disabled site by site.
• Java could be enabled/disabled site by site.
• Cookies could be enabled/disabled site by site.
• Friendly 'wizards' would explain the pros and cons of each setting and guide you through the configuration. The user could set things up however they wanted so that their browsing experience could be as full featured or lean and mean as they desired.

This is proof, folks, that the browser wasn't written for our benefit at all. It's written for the benefit of 'content producers', if anybody.

What's worse is that these features are very apparent and SO DAMN EASY TO IMPLEMENT. We should have seem them in IE years ago. Chances are, we never will. How can we expect the company who brought us 'Smart Tags' to look after us? Forget it.

Good that we have some alternatives to IE. Too bad they aren't readily apparent to the ignorant masses. Solving the problem for a few geeks does not solve the problem for the rest of us. Who knows, maybe someday ...

Re:Proof that IE does not exist for OUR benefit.

[djrogers]

I'm not a huge IE fan, but you can do this - turn off all scripting for the Internet zone, and add teh sites that you want to allow scripting for to the 'trusted sites' list. Or, you could add nasty sites to the restricted sites' list...

And Mac and Linux?

[TheAwfulTruth]

Their site seems to indicate that it works on glibc2.1 Linux and Mac as well. IE, Netscape and Opera.

As does Galeon...

[Xiphoid Process]

hooray for free browsers, ;)

Name recognition is everything???

[El]

So Adolph Hitler (TM) brand computers should sell real well, right? I mean, it's a name everyone will recognize, right? Exxon should cause an oil spill at least once as month, thus keeping it's name in the paper and increasing sales! O. J. Simpson should run for president -- now there's a man with name recognition!

Could there possibly be a flaw somewhere in the logic that "there is no such thing as bad publicity"?

Personally, I do refuse to buy products from companies with annoying ads, but I'm probably in the minority.

disable those ads with apache

[The Evil Dwarf from]

I started running a local apache server and mapping any offending sites in my etc/hosts file, (I just hacked to quick handler to handle returns for any requested pages...) Now I never see ads for sites I deem are abusive or are even annoying slow to download.

I dont see ads...

[wellwellwell]

I use (among other browsers on NT 4.0) IE 5.x with IDecide and Norton Internet Security. NIS allows you to block specific ad sites, and IDecide blocks ad cookies. In IE, I usually set the Security under TOOLS...OPTIONS...SECURTY to high, which blocks java, javascript, and ActiveX. If a site does not work, I either ignore it or lower the security/blocking measures temporarily. I remember the X-camera ads, but I havent seen one in months.

The Shitlist

[dmaxwell]

Once an ad passes my Annoyance Threshold, the offending company finds itself on my personal shitlist. I went three years without buying Energizer batteries once the bunny irritated me sufficiently. By the same token, I'll be avoiding Mitsubishi products for some too. eg. "Duh Duh Duh na da duh duh duh , put your body in motion and let's make a comotion......"

Those companies wanting to get their names into our brains at all costs should think about this a little. They just might get what they are asking for.

Get real.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't advertise that way, they will find another way. Probably more annoying, who knows. I would MUCH rather stick to the traditional banner (one or two only!) or a single flash ad on a page. When my screen is overwheled with flashy things and everything is 100% free, i tend to say screw it and close the website. I hope popups will die eventually, because I won't even go to websites with them anymore I am A-OK with slashdot's ads, and will admit to actually clicking on them a couple times being interested. I have *NEVER* clicked on ads on other sites actually being interested. Show me ads that don't annoy me, and I might read them.

One Sure Fire Way To Get Rid Of X-10

[istartedi]

Don't mention it right on the front page of /.

Seriously, it's well known that some of most annoying ads are also some of the most effective ads. It's strange but true. Think about it. How many companies get mentioned on the front page? How many people are going to read that. You gave them a lot of free advertising.

Disappearing ads

[flend]

I think people find pop-ups so irritating because they require effort to get rid of (ie. dragging the mouse and clicking on the X or whatever).

Given that we're used to short interruption based advertisments I think if the pop-ups disappeared by themselves after, say, 5 secs, they would be far less irksome.

Re:Disappearing ads

[owillis]

I have one system that displays in 10 seconds then doesnt show again for 10 minutes
--
OliverWillis.Com

Don't "Opt out"... Bust em!

[whizzmo]

With JunkBuster!

Sorry.. had to get my $.03 (adjusted for inflation) in.
---
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain

Re:Slashdot Hypocrasy(sic)

[throx]

I can never spell that word. Doh.

Don't want to start the smart tag thing again. I just saw USER CONTROLLED tags as the same thing as removing advertising content. The only difference is that with removal of advertising content you deprive the web site of income.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Many ways to block ads (Mac)

[Xerxes]

Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).

For the Mac OS, try iCab. Let's you block images by both of the above. It also has a fantastic set of cookie management functions.

Just a happy user on my home machine.

What's worse....

[frobozz3.141]

...is that those x10 popups completely bugger up Opera - it doesn't "pop-up" and the banner gets put in the original window. -Frobozz

/etc/hosts for old macos

[Onan]

The hosts file is in a fairly standard format; create it with a text editor, and save it wherever you choose, though Preferences would make sense. Select it in the TCP/IP control panel.

The catch is that I'm not sure that open transport considers 127.0.0.1 to be localhost, so you may have to use an invalid ip, or perhaps your own external interface.

Okay, I've restrained myself this long without asking: why are you still running old macos? Omniweb has every ad-avoidance feature that's been mentioned here, plus a few others, all conveniently in the browser itself. It can block:

images served from a different host than the html

images which match very common ad sizes

objects which match any of a list of regexes you supply

pop-ups other than in direct response to a click

Re:/etc/hosts for old macos

[jafac]

OS X is TOO SLOW on my 300MHz Beige. With ATI video.

I'm saving my pennies for a dual 1GHz G4 with UMA-2 mobo.
Mr. Jobs can HAVE my pennies, when I can have that machine. And until then, I'm still running classic.

OmniWeb

[MasterVidBoi]

Another alternative web browser for Mac OS X, OmniWeb handles this extremely well.

While it doesn't allow you to block JavaScript on a site-by-site basis, or turn on and off individual JavaScript actions, or have kickass image filters (all of which iCab does have)it does have one excellent feature:

Scripts are allowed to open windows only in response to a link being clicked.

Some (poorly designed) sites, require javascript popups for navigation, or an image thumbnail will often appear in a JS popup (like in many game screenshot galleries). Turning off JS completely makes it quite annoying to try and get around these sites. This feature works extremely well. No advertising Popups get through, yet JS can still create new windows when you explicitly click on the link, allowing you to navigate 95% of these sites.

Conspiracy, bring down the world it would

[t_allardyce]

Its a global conspiracy - Most people in the world use IE, or 'scape, They _could_ just disable pop-ups/java/flash, use the hosts file or other programs, but many don't know how or even that it can be done.

Microsoft for example _could_ set all this up by default, but what would that mean... overnight economic collapse as everyone realises that advertising on the net is doomed. The death of doubleclick and all, and the end of life as we know it. (Bill would get his legs broke)

So, we have the choice of being selfish and using ad-busting for our selves while retaining stability in the economy (and thus allowing the the bussinessmenwithtoomuchmoneyandpower to fuel their crackandwhorehabbits /or we could unleash a load of virii that disable advertising (while carefully retaining useful content) in the major browsers & OS's and laugh as the world falls apart. Then we could do the same to Tivo (call it v2.5) and those adverts on the bottom of hotmails etc. for some extra fun. :)

-tfga

Hacking COOKIES.TXT (Netscape/Mozilla)

[rdean400]

I just added a "1" in front of the expiration date on all the X10 cookies, and now the expiration date is sometime in 2033. Don't know if it'll work yet, because I haven't gone to a pop under website.

interesting? oh..of course..its MS bashing

[xXgeneric nicknameXx]

ahh...go to tools-->internet options-->security see the different security zones? put the sites with popups etc in the restricted zone and set the restricted zone accordingly...in your regular interenet zone you can also set javascript, cookies, etc to prompt. of course this post will never earn 2 mod points....

Re:interesting? oh..of course..its MS bashing

[whjwhj]

Wasn't trying to get mod points (although I won't refuse them). I honestly didn't know that IE did this. It's been a while since I've used it.

nice workaround to a nonexistant bug.

[mosch]

mozilla 0.9.2 keeps those settings with no problem. You're working around a problem that doesn't exist anymore.

--

Konqueror is the ....... web browser, EVER!

[robvasquez]

I would just like to say that I've been using the one that came with RH 7.1 and it's the best web browser there is. It's soooo cool. It's like IE 5 mixed with NS 6.

surf .orgs only

[BroadbandBradley]

problem solved.

They are low-cost due to child labor

[InsMonkey]

Old Navy's child labor practices are horrible. The Gap is more expensive, but doesn't use child labor at all. I prefer clothing made by adults, personally.

Re:They are low-cost due to child labor

[RedX]

Funny, I'd think that Old Navy and The Gap would have similar labor practices, considering Old Navy is owned by The Gap. I'd be willing to bet that their clothes are coming from the exact same factory. FYI, Banana Republic is another sister company.

iCab Has Site By Site Javascript Filters

[cdaveb]

On the Mac, you can use iCab which has site by site Javascript filters, and also lets you turn off just specific features of Javascript, such as open windows, writing in status bar, etc. on a site by site basis.

My current approach is to disable the open windows and status line features and just leave the others enabled, and on the rare occasion I come across a site which uses pop up windows for legit purposes, I enable it just for that one site. It's very useful- I wish all browsers let you do it.

Mac Opera (maybe the other versions too) have an option to only open a new window via clicking on a link. It didn't seem to work as expected for me though.

Re:More than 30000 days hack?

[stile]

Er, no, you'll find out tomorrow. Or whenever you restart your browser. If the x10 programmers are stupid enough to leave their CGI variables out in the open, they're stupid enough to assume they wouldn't input a DAY number that would go past the epoch. 30000, for example, makes it sometime awhile ago, which translates to "expires at end of session". I love Mozilla's view-cookies option :) Try 10000. You'll forget by then.

The Anti-Slashdot effect?

[stile]

So, with the posting of that optout link on slashdot's frontpage, x10 just lost a big portion of potential ad recipients. I wonder if this is a precedent.

NetCaptor blocks too.

[foobrain]

NetCaptor is the Galeon brother for Win32/IE.

It features nice things, including PopupCaptor: this little stuff can block only the popups you choose (when they appear, you can just hit F8 and tell bye bye to the popup).

I wonder if Galeon/Konqueror/Skipstone and other browsers did this too (as I'm not a Win32 user).

NetCaptor can be found at www.netcaptor.com.

Turning off certain ads

[LilGuy]

I've been seeing all these replies, stating that certain browsers can turn off popups from certain sites and whatnot, but these require you to enter an extensive list of domains into a file or whatever. How about a browser that has a simple button, that upon clicking, will automatically enter the domain for you, and close the window, thus disabling the pop-up from that domain.

I believe this would be much more user-friendly.

Re:Turning off certain ads

[Legion303]

You want AnalogX Pow!, the very best popup killer I've seen (Windows only, unfortunately).

-Legion

Re:My /etc/hosts -- Webfree for Mac

[r2ravens]

A very good solution is Webfree.

It's shareware - $20.00. It works on Open Transport and Classic Networking. And even though it's page hasn't been updated since 1997, it works on MacOS 8.x and 9.x and is browser independent.

It's a control panel that intercepts URL requests - much like the hosts file, I imagine - and blocks anything on the list using regex. It adds a contextual menu item for blocking images that can be used to select a particular image and then go back later and expand to the directory level, etc. It also will supress cookies, block the blink tag, and stop gif animations after the first cycle. It also has a tab on the control panel where it gives stats of how many images are blocked, animations stopped, etc.

Wonderful product, I recommend it highly.

I'm currently using

[AnonymousCowhand]

Pop-Up Stopper from Panicware.com - getting great results, with only about a +/- 1% failure rate. Hangs in the system tray, turn it off when I don't need it...

This is simply too damn ridiculous

[evilviper]

I can't believe so many people are working so hard to stop a simple problem...

I have javascript disabled in Netscape 4.75 (Mozilla doesn't compile under OpenBSD) and I never get any popups. People are going to complain that they need javascript, but I do too occasionally. When you come to your site, go to preferences and enable javascript, reload and go. Just be sure to disable javascript when you leave.

I suggest an anti-javascript movement. I think javascript is absolutely unnecessary to accomplish anything a page needs to do, and more importantly, javascript just gives web sites too much control over your machine. I happen to recall a page with hundreds of javascript popup error messages, which essentially ended up giving me no option but to kill netscape.

Javascript can open windows larger than your display, keep you in an infinite loop of web pages opening, or hold your browser hostage by comtinually popping up messages which javascript doesn't allow you to ignore.

I avoid sites that don't work without javascript (with one single exception) alltogether, and I'm a much happier person because of it.

---=-=-=-=-=-=---

The next-generation ad format is ....

[Darth Paul]

Plain Old Text?

It doesn't suffer from the the drawbacks of any ad format seen so far - it's not interruptive and it doesn't suck bigtime bandwidth.

If there were some way to embed text from another server on a page inline, that would be truly frightening - it would be much harder to distinguish ads from actual content.

But then again, it would have to be well written and targeted to blend into the page, otherwise you'd just skip over it. But well written and targeted advertising? Too much to ask for.

(Actually, I'm not sure if this can be done already - IFRAMEing it in already happens, but filtering/blocking already kills these. I'm not sure if you can do it with an SSI - I know PHP can do it. Dayem.)

--

Those of you using hosts files...

[wideangle]

Take a moment and go to your ten most visited sites. See any blocked ads?

Unblock them.

#127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net # used at theregister
#127.0.0.1 ads.admonitor.net # used at drudge
#127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org # used at slashdot

Consider it your way of giving back to the sites you visit most.

DHTML ads too

[Twid]

When I was on this story earlier today:

http://news.excite.com/news/r/010702/17/entertainm ent-crime-poundstone-dc I got a really annoying DHTML ad for Jurassic Park that scrolled with the page. It appears to be random, so you may not get it.

I agree with the other person that posted about "escalation". These sites need revenue, and they will get as annoying as they need to. They have to keep their companies alive. In the words of Dilbert, they will sell our organs for money if they thought they could get away with it.

- Twid

Pop ups are just as ineffective.

[Com2Kid]

No matter how many home loan ads I see, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't gotta home to take a loan out on, m'kay mr pop up? Shiet, when will these companys learn, undirected piss poor aimed ads DO NOT GAIN SALES. All they do is stick your name in the customers mind SO THAT THEY REMEMBER TO NEVER EVER EVER USE YOUR PRODUCT IF THEY EVER NEED IT. No seriously, get this, surprise surprise, if I don't want your product, if I cannot even USE your product (I really hate that one for that voice messaging while your on the internet, shit, I have a cable modem, what phone line exactly would I free up eh? Shit, at least check the customers IP address against a known listing of broadband ISPs)I'm not going to buy it no matter how hard you try and sell it.

Like selling boots to a man with no legs, kinda useless, heh. Not to mention, it'll piss of the guy with no legs, and it'll still cost you money.

Proxomitron is the best POPUP KILLER

[cb0y]

http://spywaresucks.org/prox/

Proxomitron, is the best, its awsome, and 100% free for windows, the guy is considering a linux port.

Wrote to X10 - Pop ups must die!

[Zeio]

I wrote to X10, once anonymously, once with my real name.

The first time I wrote them, anonymously, I told them that everyone wanted them to die of cancer, "we the people" hate them, and to stop the ads...

Then I wrote them in a more 'P.C.' way.

I said that even if I was dying to commit voyeurism, as most of their ads suggest, that I would NEVER buy their product, EVER. And all my friends and everyone, Linux and windows users alike, can unite behind me on this one. We would shudder to think to solicit a vile organization that spams us with this abusive, exploitive sub-par guerilla crap marketing.

I actually have strayed from hating KDE, because the newer stuff is so much better than it was in the past. Konqerer is a very nice browser and KDE is an excellent windowing environment.

I call upon the designers of moz, IE, Nutscrape and Opera to disable this horrible pop-up abuse!

'

how to stop x10 with IE

[quiddity]

you can kill x10 ads in internet explorer by going to:

options->security->restricted sites->sites

and then adding in www.x10.com

the pop-under window closes as soon as it opens.

Pop-up ads are Spam

[beowulf]

If email spam is illegal, then pop-up ads should also be illegal, for the exact same reasons. They are uninvited, unwanted wastes of bandwidth. This bandwith costs money, so pop-up ads are, in a way, a form of theft.<p>We need to band together ask for legislation to free us from this parasitical method of nickel and diming us to death.

Re:Pop-up ads are Spam

[KjetilK]

I can't agree with you there. While pop-ups are very annoying, you can turn them off in good browsers, and it doesn't waste any bandwidth. Besides, if a site shows you a pop-up once, you have the option of never going there again.

E-mail spam, OTOH, as allready wasted your bandwidth the moment it was put in your mailbox, filters doesn't help to preserve bandwidth. Remove-lists are obviously not working, so there is no way you can say that you will not hear from the spammers again. So e-mail spam is a lot worse than pop-ups.

Mozilla supports selective popup removal and more

[Julz]

Have a look at Configurable Security Policies, specifically Setting Global Policies.

Opera killed them

[KjetilK]

I call upon the designers of moz, IE, Nutscrape and Opera to disable this horrible pop-up abuse!

AFAIK, Opera has. I haven't tried it (I'm runnint Tru64), but according to their press release on 5.12 for windoze it has "Enhanced pop-up window handling". In Norwegian newspapers, this was portrayed as letting you disable annoying ads. I'll install it on moms and dads computer to see next time I go there.

Re:Opera killed them

[vs]

The Linux version will at least has a switch for prohibiting creation of new windows. If you use this, the pop-ups will appear in the same window, so you might have to hit the "Back"-button to go where you wanted to.

For Windows and IE users:

[KickKat]

http://www.panicware.com/products.html

Popup Stopper sits in your system tray and block all popups. You can turn it on and off by doubleclicking on it. If you want to leave it on, but allow a certain popup, just hold down one of your shift keys. It's takes a tiny bit of getting used to remembering to use the shift key, but after a day or 2, it will be second nature. Popup Stopper will blink in the tray and play a sound, if you want, to notify you when it blocks a popup. This software is free.

Galeon

[Serpent Mage]

Out of all the browsers that I've been using (and I've used almost all of them) I've found Galeon to be the absolute best for handling popups. The reason is because it has a simple little checkbox that you can click to completely disable popups. There is another checkbox that you can click that forces all popups to show up in new tabs (and does NOT change the focus away from the page). I prefer the later checkbox myself but for those who want to remove popups completely it is as simple a clicking a box :)

Re:live with it. uh no.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Problem with pop-up or pop-under ads is they tend to spawn additional instances of an already unstable browser. I dont' have a problem with displaying an ad in a single session (as long as it's not scripted), but permission to launch an executable on MY box is explicitly DENIED thank you very much. It's not necessary to do that to advertise to me. Sites that use those ads get ALL their ads stripped on my machines.

Win32? ...Proxo works under Wine as well

[BillX]

I've tried it, it works :)

(Granted, not everyone will want to have a copy of Wine eating up memory while they surf...)

--

For crying out loud, just turn off javascript!

[hawk]

For the 3 sites in the entire world that have content that's worth having but use javascript, you ain't going to miss much. . .

OK, if you're a windows user, a) you're going to lose out on a couple of remote exploits this way, and b) here's a nickel; go buy a real computer . . .

:)

hawk

Re:For crying out loud, just turn off javascript!

[dolanh]

Dude, you have to be joking. In case you've been in the stone ages or something, a *lot* of site architecture these days relies on JavaScript, as buggy as it is. Whenever possible, I try to use server-side technologies, but there are quite a few things that is either very difficult or impossible to do any other way, yet are expected by clients. But yer probably browsing on lynx anyways :)...

Re:For crying out loud, just turn off javascript!

[hawk]

> a *lot* of site architecture these days relies on JavaScript,

And I have yet to see one that was any better for it.

> But yer probably browsing on lynx anyways :)...

What's the smiley for? Of course I"m using lynx.

hawk, who also uses vi and fortran

Re:For crying out loud, just turn off javascript!

[dolanh]

Ok, here's a very simple recent case.

A form was written into using a PERL script writing to a template. Consequently the data is lost if the user submits, then changes his/her mind and uses the back button. Javascript is used to parse the form fields and provide the error-checking before the form is submitted, circumventing this problem.

Would you like more cases where JavaScript is useful?

iCab has nice features, but it's not out on PCs

[fractaltiger]

I have thought of this. For years I desired the compatibility of IE on the Mac, but thought it could never happen. I tried IE 4 when it came out on the mac, and without all the Windows Explorer integration or the useless desktop streaming add-ins that were the hype of '98, the browser was not what I expected. Since it's not that stable, many mac users and I prefer Netscape 4.

Things have changed in the past 2 years and IE5 came out for the mac, with a better interface, but I'm not convinced of its superiority over IE4 (besides stability, that is) I found iCab, a currently freeware beta that lets you have a cookies list, and my most cherished feature of all: the javascript config. Too bad my mac is on campus and I don't have iCab here -- iCab's config lets me turn off not just javascript, but SEPARATELY turn off pop-ups, window resizing, annoying status bar text, and other useless javascript. The only thing I really need jscript is to log onto my webmail, pick choices out of dropdown menus or click on buttons that people put on pages, wasting bandwith when they could have used a link.

The feared right-click traps have never been an issue for older mac os browsers, but it seems that you're right about the content providers and browser implementation. Heck, I can even drag and drop pictures straight onto my desktop, and I want that feature on my PC now! I hate having to use the API save menu when we all know the image is already somewhere in cache waiting to be DRAGGED or copied to a more permanent place.

Well, If these features have been implemented in Opera and it's not much of a hassle, please reply! You never know how much a moderator can give you for letting them see the light you see :)

I forgot to tell you: if you develop HTML, this 3MB browser has an error detection feature called the smiley face. It frowns on pretty much any page you can see, because the W3C standards aren't respected, but it shows you a page with the first 100 errors in your little HTML page. Pretty cool help for my custom HTML homepage.

is X10 doing that well ?

[Archfeld]

That is suprising to me I guess. I can honestly say I've NEVER used a click-thru ad. I HAVE looked at the properties and gone to a site in another browser session, so in that manner the ad did have some success. I also do use X10 cameras at home. Is nice not having to get up from my EQ to see that the doorbell was rung by a salesman :)

all the better

[Archfeld]

I am going to do a little reading myself thanks