Slashdot Mirror
No Pop-up Blocking in Netscape 7.0
jsled writes "C|Net /News.com article details how the forthcoming Netscape 7.0 will not include the nifty pop-up blocking sported in Mozilla, as AOL depends on pop-up ads for annoy^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing to their "valued" customers. The MozillaZine story and comments have a couple of extra, interesting points of detail: how to easily restore the functionality and how some sites get around the popup blocking."
Update: 08/15 12:45 GMT by J : In related news, Doug Isenberg asks over on GigaLaw:
Are Pop-Up Ads Illegal? The news publishers who say "yes" say that turning off graphics in your web browser should be illegal too.
Ideally, you shouldn't have to code for Mozilla, but rather the W3C specs. This would in turn help promote W3C conforming browsers, be it mozilla or something else.
Everything isn't always the ideal though...
You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. If they want to display a small pop-up to show, for example, a little help note, when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser? If you're using a browser without popup blocking, I could just send you to a page that opens 1,001 popup windows, forcing you to kill your browser program (or restart your entire machine if it didn't have preemptive multitasking). I don't block any regular ads; I fully agree that sites need to be allowed to pay their writers, and I don't have a problem with them inserting even gigantic ads. Have any of you read a magazine or newspaper lately? Most other mediums devote more than a 1x8" square to advertizing, and as long as web pages keep the same kind of ratio of advertizing to content as other mediums I have no quarrel. But I would not tolerate a newspaper that used a CO2 cannister to propel advertizing and confetti all over my living room.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
If instead they want to make unwarranted assumptions about the kind of browser I'm using and/or my Web browsing habits, that's their lookout. I feel no ethical dilemma at all; I am not stealing anything, because at no point did I make any agreement to accept popups. Had I done so and then reneged on my agreement, that would be a different story.
I get a scad of unsolicited advertising in my Sunday newspaper, too. I usually throw it away without looking at it. No doubt the newspaper would be more expensive if it wasn't there, but that doesn't mean I feel ethically obliged to wade through it so that their business model is justified. A presumption on their part does not constitute an obligation on mine.
On the other hand, I wouldn't even attept to disable the banner advertising on my Opera browser, because there I did agree to it - it was my choice to accept the ad-sponsored version, and I consider it a fair exchange.
The AntiAdBlocker guy is correct in that it's ad views and not click-throughs that are generally the important thing for the webmaster. Granted, he didn't make his case in a particularly polite manner (neither did you). But he's got the right to produce and distribute his software, just as the Junkbuster etcetera people do. If it wasn't wanted, webmasters wouldn't use it and we'd have no problem. Live and let live.
J
I have been trying to find a suitable way of replacing banners on my (commercial) web sites. In the "good old days" banners got me about 0.02 per view, which was about 50% of the price the banner company charged their clients. With our page impressions, these totals would have just about paid for the online costs, and small salaries for two persons, no luxuries included.
This is all gone now, banner companies don't pay by view any more, and we are still alive mostly by the many partnerships we have been able to establish, not by banners. The pressure to accept more agressive banner terms is rising, however - we don't want our company.com to go titsup.com and lose 100,000s of satisfied people. Just like Slashdot ...
I don't like (and will never use, unless my life depends on it) pop-up banners or floating banners or things like that. It's a one-way tunnel that is constantly getting worse, and never going to end. I think explaining to people WHY the Web isn't (and can't be) totally "free", at least not for non-hobbyist sites, will help more in the long run. Providing anti-ad functions, anti-anti-ad extensions and anti-anti-ad-blocker plugins is just plain SICK. IMHO.
Be honest: Would you be interested in a re-introduction of the HTTP/1.1 "Cost:" header - or similar measures - and pay 0.02 per mouse click? Because that is what you "pay" indirectly to the company providing you a service.
If the service is bad, then don't use it, full stop. If you use anti-banner software you are effectively cheating the webmaster into providing you his service, without paying for it. It's like going to a restaurant and not paying because you didn't want to see the ads on the inside cover of the menu.
And please kill the "additional cost" argument, it's rubbish. Your internet costs are larger because you have to download banner ads, right? Of course: Your internet connection is the vehicle to transport you to the service you want to access, it has NO connection with the actual service (most of the time anyway). Do you expect to get everything for free at McDonalds just because you paid the bus to get you there? And perhaps expect McDonalds to actually thank you for your non-paying visit?
NOBODY expects to get everything for free in the supermarket just because they already paid the taxi. On the Web, this expectation is there, however, and people don't understand that above a certain level, things just cost.
Why?
P.S.: Do you expect to get ads in magazines and newspapers banned as well? Because the newspaper is bigger with the ads and you have to pay for the paper, right?
WRONG. The "Springer" editor house in Germany which sells the "Spiegel" magazine (very popular) published a comparison recently. The magazine costs about 3.- and contains about 40% ads. Without the ads, it would have to cost about 30.- to cover the printing and distribution costs! So, what would you rather have? P.P.S: Reply by email if you want a serious discussion about this. I'm interested.
Home Page
Personally I think advertisers should give up on the graphics and go back to basics: Kuro5hin textads are unobtrusive but actually quite effective (I read them a lot more than fashy graphics or popups - and the 'haiku' opportunities are endless). The web isn't like a broadcast medium, it's driven by the user, not the broadcaster; ad agencies need to re-think their approach.
Energy: time to change the picture.