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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[guinsu]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

------

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

------

Well...

[Violet Null]

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

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...

[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.

--

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

[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: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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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... :)

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?

[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.

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!

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.

Ads suck

[mholve]

I don't put up with ANY of them.

Junkbuster, baby. :)

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.

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

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.

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.
--

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

[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.

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

[InsaneGeek]

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

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.

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

[jafac]

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

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

[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.

--

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.

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(

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...
--

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.

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

[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

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: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.

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....

/. pop-ups

[AX.25]

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

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

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).

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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

[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).

--

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

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: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

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.

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?

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.

--

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/

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

[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.

--

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/

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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>?

Blocking all ads

[alanjstr]

This has become pretty similar to previous Slashdot posts

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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: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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Re:IP Filtering to the rescue!

[RedX]

Red X's are at least a little more pleasant

I'll take that as a compliment ;-)

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

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!

'

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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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