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.
is there any real internet business model from the standpoint of a website that offers a service but not cult membership?
------
[insert funny
(Original) http://ufaq.org/files/adblocker.xpi
Pleas post mirrors in this thread.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's not mentioned in the article, but Mozilla's hostname-based image blocking is gone from Netscape as well.
Install Mozilla.
for those of you who have not heard this already. Don't like it? USE SOMETHING ELSE. Netscape can do whatever it wants with its software. Mind you, they might do something else if people quit using the software. So perhaps, instead of compaining that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, like it seems to do three times a day on slashdot, seek alternatives. Thank you.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
you're not preventing the ads on TV from being presented, you're just not watching them.
For those of you who use M$ Internal Exploder, Pop-Down is a nifty program. Relatively small memory footprint, a quick download, freeware. I use it on my computer-illiterate mom's p-120, and it works a whole lot better & faster than a lot of other programs that have to match the title bar with a database. This thing, although crude, lets you limit the number of windows. You also have to hold down CTRL when you want a new window to be formed. Worth a try, I use it.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
Then stop visiting the site. Don't be a hypocrite and whine about how evil and annoying ads are, then continue viewing the content a site offers while blocking the ads.
A site has to be pretty damned good, and unique for me to put up with annoying popups. If there is any other option, I'll take it. These sites need to know that their potential customers will simply leave if the ads pester them too much.
or click here
Being a web developer, this causes me to primarly develop with Mozilla, and then leave the other browser testing to the QA cycle. Ultimately this causes sites I develop to be "optomized for Mozilla", which in turn may cause more users to use Mozilla.
So although currently the percentage of the userbase using Mozilla is low, I would guess that the percentage of web developers is much higher - meaning we are at the begining of a growth cycle.
-CySurflex
my dads web site..
Disabling JavaScript is the best solution.
Ask yourself, what has JavaScript done to improve the web browsing experience? Sure rollovers are cute, but is it worth pop up ads and page trapping and filling your screen with full-size windows to a dozen pr0n sites?
I wish browser makers would focus more on implementing useful things like CSS2. Browsers are for viewing content, not doing tricks.
Just enter this line in the prefs.js file:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
Fight the Man!
Mozilla Power!
How to disable unrequested (pop-up/behind) windows:
.txt to the filename (adblocker.xpi.txt). Before saving the file, remove .txt from the filename and save the file to disk. Then in Netscape 7 click File | Open to install.
Add this line to your user.js or prefs.js:
user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);
OR
Download the adblocker.xpi file.
http://techaholic.net/adblocker.xpi
When you download the adblocker.xpi file in Netscape 7, it will add
In Netscape 7 click Edit | Preferences | Advanced - Scripts & Windows to unselect or select the Open unrequested windows.
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Every time another window opens, another instance of the browser has to be launched which can result in an overload of resources to the machine.
This link is purely an educational tool, it will continually launch popups until your machine
comes to a halt. Unless you're good with kill or task manager don't click it. A reboot and your machine will be fine.
I think by law, ads should be rendered on the same page as the article and not in a popup or popunder window.
Sites like slash should have a "Yellow Pages" of ads. I'd go browse a bunch of banners if they were presented like my yellow pages if I needed a service.
Hmm, maybe we should ask Stallman if popups can be considered spam.
I like and use Mozilla, but do not use the popup blocking. If a site needs the revenue of popups and I don't value the site enough to tolerate them, I won't go there.
:)
What I worry about is that if too many people block popup, the sites will turn around and block that browser (i.e. Mozilla or modified Netscape 7.0).
Of course, you could always hack Mozilla to pretend to be IE...
Bottom line: Sites need revenue and will fight to get it. Think twice before blocking ads at a site you like.
Imagine that being wildly successful in your career meant that you failed 95% of the time. A baseball player getting called out 19 out of every 20 trips to the plate. Yet, in the world of direct (snail) mail, that's considered a successful campaign. So, if you mailed out 1,000,000 letters to 950,000 who threw it away, you'd think you were a direct marketing stud.
Online advertising is even worse, yet rather than realizing that people are probably not interested in your product (they would have clicked the banner ad), you figure you'll pop up extra windows. It's like reading a magazine and throwing out the first 8 magazine subscription cards but then seeing the 9th and saying "hmm, if they're willing to go through that much effort maybe I should subscribe."
And the best part is that people who figure out new surface area to plaster with ads consider themselves to be "creative." Bullsh-t. You are a hack. You'd be more creative if you were in a boy band or producing a reality TV show...
Bill Hicks said it best, "If you're in marketing, kill yourself."
Despite what you may be thinking, marketing people are not insects. Technically, they are arachnids.
HTTP error codes, as specified in RFC 2616:
[insert witty comment here]
I use a program called Proxomitron. It is a proxy that sits on your own machine and basically filters webpages for pop-ups, javascript, ads, etc. there is no way around this method of blocking and it works great. The only site that gives mee problems is http://www.mail.com. What they have done is made it do that to navigate the site, you have to enable javascript. For sites like that, a simple window killer works fine.
The thing that websites need to understand is that most of the web is "open-source". I don't mean that you can take whatever you want, but what I mean is that most of the website's code can be viewed. Those sites that use obnoxious java, flash, etc. types of stuff to close source their sites require a third party program (at least with the Sun Java client under windows I use) to be viewed. What do I do? I just disable that stuff, if I can't navigate the site, then I won't go there. The point of the open-source is that if my browser is going to do anything, I have the ultimate control since the code is run from my machine. To hell with pop-ups, pop-unders, javascript, flash, shockwave, etc. etc. etc.
Get Proxomitron.
It uses regular expressions to allow you to convert anything in HTML (including the HTML headers) to anything you want.
It'll block pop-ups, pop-unders, javascript, cookies, java, or whatever you can write a regex for.
If you're worried that not viewing site X's pop-ups is theft of service, you can not forego using Proxomitron on those sites, either entirely, or on a regex-by-regex basis.
You can bypass filtering just by adding string (like "bypass..") in front of the URL, or automate this with a Bookmark/Favorite set to a simple javascript.
And it makes browsing SO much more enjoyable. It's the difference between night and day, not having annoying, flashing, in-your-face ads.
And it's fast (even with DSL connection speeds) and it's free (as in beer, but hey, they author also licenses it to adsubtract).
Get Proxomitron and take back the web.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
If you try to evade a site's revenue stream while still trying to use that site, don't be surprised if the admin justifiably takes action against you.
Ok. And if a site goes to such trouble to shove ads down my throat, don't be suprised when I stop using it.
Let's be honest. Nearly anyone will tolerate a few ads for a quality site. Proxy filters like Proxomitron are popular because sites have gone overboard -- way overboard -- with ads.
(Even mainstream sites, like washingtonpost.com and nytimes.com, although I didn't realize until I browsed from work without a proxy filter.
I have a completely different, and better browsing experience than do most, because I use a proxy filter.)
What get more clicks-throughs? Try more compelling and fewer ads.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
This is one of the reasons that I am not extremely happy with the dual-licensed nature of programs such as Mozilla and OpenOffice. Sure, such power in open-source packages can truly be a godsend to all of us, but the fact is that such a licensing scheme protects contributors barely more than a BSD-style license would. If either of these projects (most notably OpenOffice) becomes so popular that its owner could make a good profit by being able to close the code and sell it for a high price, by turning it into, in efffect, just another Microsoft Office, then they are free to at any time fork the code from the open-source project and continue in-house development, only releasing closed versions and extracting a fee from users. In this case the open-source version of the program would have to choose between playing eternal catch-up with the commercial version or evolving into something entirely different and entirely incompatible.
I also firmly believe that this model discourages contributors, mostly for the lack of protection mentioned above. I would certainly be happy to contribute my work to a GPL project; if a company wants to close some of the code that I have written, however, or link it with closed code, then I would require a fee from that company. It is as simple as that.
This brings me to my point: No, we wouldn't have either of theses projects without either Sun or AOL, but such a licensing mechanism allows companies such as these to close and commercially use contributed code that many potential contributors would prefer be GPLed for their own gain, rather than the benefit of their users - such is this action by AOL which is the subject of our discussion.
A few months ago however, I tried out Opera. After using it a bit I discovered the "Disable Pop Ups" option and there was no way I'd go back to IE then. Even now when I have to switch for some compatibility issue (not often, only the really small web sites seem to have IE dependant features), I'm amazed at how annoying all the pop ups immediately become.
This is one of the best things that Open Source can do to convert users. Provide features that consumers (like me) truly want and the big boys won't give them.
Just get Proxomitron. It does this already.
(One set of filters blocks pop-ups, but re-enables them for two seconds following a mouse-up; it assumes that the mouse-up followed a mouse-down that clicked for the pop-up.)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
My personal vote: Netscape 7.6. Mozilla will live long and prosper but I believe Netscape will not. There may be some(many) tuned (business, embedded, etc.) versions of Mozilla available under different names in future, but Netscape - at the moment does not seem to have much extra to offer. Or if it does, could someone say it out loud? What do you vote? :)
Well, it's like this: Netscape has that whole "brand recognition" thing... Mozilla doesn't. At work, we have common computers for people who have sort of a "mobile office".
We tried an experiment where we had Mozilla on some (I say it's so much better then Netscape) and Netscape on the others. The ones with Mozilla were questioned the most, they didn't know what it was, but they knew immediately Netscape meant web browsing action.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Just another example of the coolness that is Mozilla: Bannerblind.
It removes graphics / objects from web pages that match pre-determined sizes. Very cool!
Thought you might be interested. Note the very professional attitude the antiadblocker fellow keeps during his part of the discussion. Also note that I never admitted to blocking ads but his tone certainly acts as if I had. I was going to continue the argument but I tired of it. Maybe a couple hundred slashdotters would like to pick up where I left off? ;-) In order to keep it as short as possible I'll just copy and paste the email with the embedded replies etc. I'm sure you can figure it out:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner"
To: webmaster@AntiAdBlocker.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Ad blockers
> Hmmm. I wonder what makes you think that anyone who blocks ads would be
> even the slightest bit interested in buying something from a banner ad
> that they saw on a website.
> I guess it's a good thing your customers can't think this in depth.
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:52:06 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
A scumbag like yourself probably doesn't understand this, but billions of
dollars of products are purchased on the internet. MANY people click and
buy products, just not scumbag leeches like yourself that think you're owed
something. Also, most websites are paid when you view the ads, not if you
click or buy something. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would
understand how all the websites you visit are funded. AntiAdBlocker allows
the internet to keep running even with scumbags like yourself surfing the
web and stealing from webmasters. Shame on you.
AntiAdBlocker
From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:40:56 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> I can tell from your tone that you are a very professional outfit,
> nevertheless you did not answer my question so I will take issue with your
> assumptions. I have no doubt that many things are bought over the
> internet. I do it myself.
> But just as with the real world, when I want something I go and get it. I
> NEVER purchase anything from an unsolicited phonecall.
> I NEVER purchase something from an unsolicited email.
> I NEVER purchase anything just because I see it on an ugly billboard that
> mars the beauty of the natural land nor do I buy things I see on an
> obtrusive banner ad.
Hogwash. Internet ads are like TV commercials. You watch the TV channel
for free and as a condition, they have commercials. It's not unsolicited
like a telemarketer. It's an agreement that you watch TV or the internet at
a reduced cost if you view the ads. So first of all, internet advertising
is not in the same league as junk mail, spam or telemarketers.
Secondly, don't lie to yourself. Do you purchase ANYTHING that you've seen
on a TV ad? I'm sure you have so don't even lie. That's the same kind of
ad as the internet. The ads offset the cost of the program and delivery.
Third, you must be foolish if you think that no one clicks on an ad and buys
something. If they didn't, advertisers wouldn't buy anymore ads, would they
Mr. smart ass? Also, a lot of internet advertising is branding, just like
TV commercials. Most TV commercials don't directly sell something. They
just brand a product. Like beer or car commercials. There's tons of beer
and car commercials but not once have I even seen a beer or car commercial
that gives a number to call to order beer or a car. That's because their
branding the product. Many internet ads are the same, just branding.
Marketing 101, but obviously, you don't have a clue and even worse you think
you know what you're talking about.
> These banner ads cost internet users time and bandwidth just to download
> them to display them and as the ads get bigger the problem gets worse.
The same could be argued about TV commercials. It costs time and bandwidth
to view TV commercials, but guess what? Those are the terms of watching TV
or the internet for free or at a reduced cost. If a TV show has too many
ads, you turn the channel. If an internet site has too many ads, you turn
the channel. The notion that YOU are being inconvenienced for getting
something for FREE is stupid. The fact is that you pay probably a flat
amount per month for your internet connection, just like cable TV. And just
like TV, the costs to view the internet are so low because of advertising.
Think how much cable TV would cost if there were no ads. I can tell you
already, about $10-$15 per channel per month instead of $30 for 50 channels.
The same goes with the internet. Ads pay for most of the internet. So your
$15-$30 internet connection per month would cost hundreds of dollars if you
had to pay for every site you visited. I don't think you understand, or can
grasp the fact that if all internet ads were banned tomorrow, either the
internet would fold or you would be paying several times more for your
internet connection.
Internet ads have become more bold because of people like yourself blocking
ads and thinking that sites shouldn't have ads. I don't think you
understand that sites don't run off a $10/month server. Most medium-sized
sites need a dedicated server which costs hundreds a month. And bandwidth
is about $300/Mbps (about 30 times the home cable rate). I have a single
site that costs me $2100/month for the server and the bandwidth. And the
only way to pay for that is with ads. If everyone blocked ads, the site,
and every other medium to large site on the internet would close and the
internet would suck. But you probably only care about yourself and don't
comprehend the big picture.
> There are many users out there that actually have to pay per the minute
> and each ad is costing them real money.
So what? It's your CHOICE to view a site. The ad wasn't sent to you. You
came to view it! And you're forgetting that those sites you're viewing also
have to pay for you to leech from them. Is that fair? Maybe you pay by the
minute, but you're not paying the web sites you visit. And if you're
blocking ads, you're stealing from the webmaster.
> Point remains though, that people who block ads weren't going to buy
> anything from them anyway.
That is about the most stupid thing I've ever heard and scumbags like
yourself always use it. I can spot a idiot scumbag like yourself a thousand
miles away when you use that statement. Listen to me now and understand me
later. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BUY IT OR NOT, WEBMASTERS ARE PAID IF YOU
VIEW THE AD, NOT IF YOU CLICK ON IT OR BUY IT!!!! Let that soak into that
piece of crap you call a brain. Do you understand yet? Ads are paid by
impression and are designed for branding for the most part. The fact that
you click on them or not doesn't make a difference. It's that you VIEW
them. And if you block ads, you're stealing bandwidth from webmasters.
> They're just sick of having to pay in time and/or
> money to be forced to see someone's garish snakeoil logo.
99% of internet users don't pay by the minute. And even if you're too
stupid to get a flat-fee internet connection, you have the same option as
you have with the TV, change the channel if you don't like the program or
the ads. Stealing from the webmaster can't be justified just because you're
too stupid to have a flat-fee internet connection.
> Shame on YOU for perpetuating the ugliness of the web.
Shame on YOU for stealing from webmasters. I can't wait till AntiAdBlocker
is on every site on the web so scumbags like yourself no longer get a free
ride and can't steal from webmasters.
AntiAdBlocker
A great many websites do not function without it. In particular, forms no longer work. Many website also use those small (60x60 pixels or so) click-thru popups to provide instant help. Links in some website depend on javascript, which means that browsing around certain website becomes impossible with javascript disabled. And constant re-enabling/disabling makes it a pain in the ass to do. Summary - IE sucks the big one for pop-ups. You have to get a third party program, and from what I have seen, they aren't great either. So when I go to sites I suspect are going to bombard me with that stuff, I open up Moz. [But I generally stick to IE for the much, much faster instantiation time]
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I do. Mozilla's popup blocking is a tool at my disposal. I don't whine about those ads because I don't see them. The site is entitled to try and use them as a revenue stream, just as TV stations are entitled to air ads, but that doesn't mean I am obligated to do what they're hoping I will. If it were that simple then the Underpants Gnome could come up with a profitable plan.
1) Desire revenue.
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
Whining that your business plan doesn't work because people aren't acting like good little corporate sheep isn't any better than what you're complaining about. If people are willing to go to considerable lengths to avoid an entire class of advertising then it's time to wake up and look for alternatives. Harangueing people to suffer through advertising they actively despise because "it's the right thing to do" isn't likely to result in additional sales for the advertisers anyway.
I think that:
500 Internal Server Error
Should have been...
500 server fucked up due to slashdotting
Try Solaris then...
Sunos 5.6, is Solaris 2.6
Solaris 8 is Solaris 2.8 is SunOS 5.8
Advanced users are users too!
I had a similar dialogue with a "Bulk E-mail Promotion Company" a while back, pretty much on the same lines.
... and so on. Eventually I stopped getting mails.
---
> Please unsubscribe me from your list. I don't like spam.
Why do you say that?
> Well, because it's inconvenient for me.
Is it because it's inconvenient for you that you came to me?
> Yes. I would like to unsubscribe from your mailing list.
What makes you believe you might want to unsubscribe?
> Because I know I want to unsubscribe.
Does it bother you that you know you want to unsubscribe?
> No, what bothers me is spam.
Earlier you said it's inconvenient for you?
> Yes, of course it's inconvenient. Do you like spam?
I don't understand.
> Do you appreciate getting spam in your mailbox?
You mentioned that you would like to unsubscribe?
> Yes, please unsubscribe me from your list.
Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Listen friend, my life is none of your damn business. No more spam, end of discussion.
I would appreciate it if you would watch your tongue!
> ME watch MY tongue? But you send me mails called "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS 2-4 INCHES GUARANTEED!"
When did you first know that I send you mails called enlarge my penis 2 4 inches guaranteed?
---
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.
I may get flamed out of existence for this, but so be it.
Everyone here sounds like popups are the work of the devil and should be banned from the Internet. Someone needs to put things into perspective here.
I operate a Web site where popunders and banner ads are the main source of revenue for the site. The free service I offer people who go to my site is run on over 16 different servers. What pays for these servers to be online? The money from advertising. Let's face it - you don't get jack for banner ads these days. Personally i get 8 cents CPM on banners. That's nothing. Where do you look to? Alternative types of ads that do pay.
So how can I pay my bills that total nearly $3,000 a month for this "free" service (and make a profit in the end)? Popunders. This is what advertisers are willing to pay for these days. Am I a sinner that should be crusified for supporting this ad format?
The fact is, many of the sites you visit today on the Internet are ad supported. Many are just scraping by, and this is one of their main sources of revenue. Your using popup killer deprives these sites of revenue that they should be getting for you visiting their sites.
If someone puts some content out on the Internet for you to read, and puts a popunder on the page, you allowing the popunder to load is your payment for reading the information on the page. YES it is stealing from that Web site to not have their ad load. They are offering something for you, but you have to be willing to give a little something back - be that 1 second of your time to close a new window, or a few seconds where you actually consider the ad.
Nothing is free. You have to pay somehow, and on the Internet you pay with your eyes.
I see one of the other posts here claiming that popunders basically "hijacking" their browser. Some Web sites may try to lock you into popup hell where you close one window, more come up in an endless loop. Of course that is wrong, I'm not supporting that. What I do support is all the Webmasters out there who are trying to get by where their source of revenue is legitamit popup/under advertising. Just because a new window is created, that's not hijacking, come on, get real.
Like I said, just my opinion on the matter, probably be flamed like never before. Someone has to be the 'bad' guy.
Yeah, expecting popup blocking in Netscape now is like expecting a Coke machine not to have a coin slot.
The net is filled with ads, what did you expect from AOL? Of course netscape won't feature something that works against what their owners see as their business. Netscape didn't start mozilla for the sake of freedom or removal of annoyance, they did it because they want to own the only browser on the market, and be able to push whatever they want into it. They are not battling IE for your sake after all.
I think there is a better chance that Konqi will get and keep features such as this, and it is not a big piece of bloat either.
Pop-up ads are one of the reasons why I choose not to use mainstream browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape (aside from liking proper CSS1 support like Konqueror has). I like the way Konqueror and Mozilla give you the option of filtering them out. People have pointed out that it is easy to modify Netscape 7 to do this filtering too, so there is nothing to moan about (apart from the XPI links going to servers running IIS that are falling over under the demand for this file). Recent Mozillas are small and fast (relatively) and give you all the nice features. It's your choice.
Follow me
I'm not a die hard open source fanatic by any means. I use Windows 2000 most of the time, and I only occasionally boot to my Linux partition to play.
A few months ago however, I tried out Opera.
opera != open source ... ;)
Unless they just changed to make me look foolish
Opera may be neat and all, but it ain't OS.
If popups are disabled, the download won't start, and you'll get a fairly polite message stating you ought not to block the advertisement.
I'm not sure I'd use this blocker-blocker on my own site, since it's bound to annoy the shit out of some people. But it does kind of work.
The whole thing kind of reminds me of that hitchhiking device in HHGttG, you know, the one that was perpetually being improved by half the galaxy's engineers while the other half attempted to block it?
on a TV ad?"
Did I read that correctly? This has to be my favorite part of the whole email. With reasoning like that, it's amazing he can hold ANY job, let alone represent a company as its webmaster.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
There's a bit of JS you can link to which makes it work.
Alternatively you can use absolute positioning and hide the fixed from IE using one of the many tricks/selectors it doesn't support (assuming this is compatible with your use of fixed).
Or you can do what the W3C do and ignore it. Nice how IE6 SP1 *still* doesn't fix this.
Would someone please splain me why pop-ups are better than banner ads?
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
If it wasn't for taxpayer-funded programs, then why would we pay taxes?
Fools! Don't you realize that denying pop-up ads is stealing web-based content, just the same way that skipping TV commercials is stealing television programs?
I'm not sure how sarcastic I'm being, here, when you get right down to it. It's clear that if advertising is supposed to make possibile all the free content we're used to, then the ability to block all ads is something of an issue. (Is it actually advertising that keeps web sites going? Or is it pixies? I've never figured it out.)
What I am sure of is that people shouldn't be prevented from blocking ads if they want to. If that causes a problem for advertisers, so be it. And certainly, people not viewing the ads aren't in any sense "thieves" -- you put ads out there hoping that people will view them, but you can't force people to view them. (Well, you can try, if you can afford the politicians.)
Like everyone keeps saying around here: things may change. For example, if ads no longer seem to be working (because, f'r instance, nobody ever sees them anyone), the nature of free content on the Web may alter. If this inconveniences either the viewers of that content, or the advertisers, well, tough.
I conclude with a quote from Heinlein, which should be sent to all relevant parties, once a day:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute nor common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." --Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
As I recall, the window has to be opened with X milliseconds of you clicking the link, in order to avoid delayed popunders.
Mozilla is a new start and the only complaint I have is the ugly Netscape-theme which comes out at default (which also gives me the shivers).
Why aren't people just switching to Mozilla instead of Netscape? One reason I think is the problem with plugins. Why is it so hard to get Mozilla to recognize plugins? I've installed the Real plugin 10 times and can't get Mozilla to recognize it. Fix that problem and I'll get my mom to use it. Until then, she's stuck with an incomplete version in NS6/7.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
That's the fault of the GUI/Desktop environment, not the browser's name. If the menu option or icon for the browser was called "Surf the web" or "Internet", then people would question Mozilla just as much as they questionned Netscape - in fact, they'd probably question both a lot less. My mum's quite happy using Konqueror to surf the web. She finds it on a sub-menu called "Internet", which makes it plainly obvious what it is for.
Follow me
I object to annoying advertising as well, and it's the wrong turn to take. People will not click on or regard banner ads in principle, even if the ad in itself is interesting. ("Yeah, I know they're good, but they are using banner ads, so they suck.")
Education is the key, people must be made aware of the real prices (without ads). Perhaps Slashdot could publish their finances. :-)
Home Page
Mary Bingham, of Springfield, was arrested today for criminal copyright violations. Several shoppers at the PiggyMax grocery store witnessed Bingham, a 42 year old mother of two children attending Spingfield High School, flip past an advertisement in Curve magazine.
"She [Bingham] was standing at the magazine stand just reading the magazine [Curve]. When all the sudden, she flipped right past a page featuring an advertisement," said Marv Winklman, a sales representative for a local cable operator. "It was horrible. I witnessed the suffering of Curve magazine... I remember turning to others standing next to her in shock. I had no words. My god, the advertisement was just flipped by. I hope she rots in prison!" Mary Bingham and her attorney refused to comment on this story.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
That article was fascinating.
Basically, it seems to me as though from a marketing perspective, they want to force us to not ignore ads. A "good ad" is one that cannot be ignored.
They are missing the point of marketing entirely. A "good ad" is one we don't ignore because we don't want to ignore it, but because we're forced to not ignore it. That's always been a basic maxim of marketing; you're selling the product, and alienating your viewers does not serve that purpose.
Seen this way, pop-up (and popover) ads become nothing more than the last refuge of the talentless hack who can't make a decent advertisement to save his life, so he instead forces people to view it.
The anatomy of an effective ad on the Net right now is changing. Google has the right idea with its AdWords. A good ad doesn't take a lot of bandwidth and isn't intrusive, but still manages to intrigue the user. They're integrated well into the page, so they still manage to Look Good. That's the type of ad I would check out. Text-based ads also have the advantage that even though they take almost no time to download over even the slowest modems, they cannot be blocked because they're part of the page, rather than a separate entity. You might theoretically be able to hack around your user CSS file, but thhat would be the only way, and even then you wouldn't save any bandwidth.
Here's an example of an a text-based ad system that works. Open-Source, too; nice bonus.
Second, if you want to see how to have ads on a web site without pissing everyone off check out kuro5hin. No popups and no images in the ads. They are easily spotted yet don't distract the reader from the rest of the page. At the choice of the advertiser you can even discuss the ad. Simple ad creation lets people quickly design and submit their copy (no waiting for someone to create an image). IMO it's advertising that is very acceptable.
Banner ads are a bad idea; popups much, much worse. Let's admit to our mistake and stop using them.
Advertising on the net is annoying but a necessary evil. But at the current rate banner/popup ads will be all you can see in you web browser. Something has to change.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Allow me to quote myself:
Why the f*** does any browser support unsoliciated pop-ups anyway?
If you clicked on a link that said "Show me the nearest branch," then by definition it is a solicited pop-up.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Everyone here sounds like popups are the work of the devil and should be banned from the Internet. Someone needs to put things into perspective here.
So how can I pay my bills that total nearly $3,000 a month for this "free" service (and make a profit in the end)? Popunders. This is what advertisers are willing to pay for these days. Am I a sinner that should be crusified for supporting this ad format?
Let me get this right. You sell your soul to the devil, and then complain that those that have religion are raining hellfire down on you?
You seem to forget that the web is and always has been a user-controlled medium. Web browsers don't have to be 800x600 or 640x480, hell I can make mine 1000x20 if I want to. If I want to change my local DNS so that ads.losercompany.com resolves to 127.0.0.1 instead of your ad-generating box, that's your problem, not mine. And the moment you start spouting obvious bull$#!+ like
YES it is stealing from that Web site to not have their ad load
is the point where I just sit back and point and laugh at you. It is the height of arrogance to proclaim that I'm somehow stealing from you because I didn't do something you asked me to. You can generate all the bits in the world you want, but as soon as they come across the net into my computer, they're mine to do with inside my computer however I want. Your rights end where my computer begins. If that means that you can't make as much money as you thought you were going to be able to, then guess what: try again, loser. No one has the right to make money.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
The news publishers who say "yes" say that turning off graphics in your web browser should be illegal too.
I hate to be one of those who pick on the Slashdot "editors" for their commentary, but I've got to jump in here. Can someone quote me the line from the GigaLaw article which states that the people suing Gator claim that browsing without graphics turned on is illegal?
If you're going to make a comment, please point to a reference. Nowhere could I find that mentioned. If you're just going to make shit up that you think is right, just shut up.
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.
I did so, and surfed to nytimes.com, and immediately got a pop-up.
I have to say that I agree with most other people here, pop up ads are the most annoying part of the current internet (except possibly pop unders!) I have never, and will never buy anything as a result of seeing one, infact, it puts me off the brand. The only advertising I approve of are the sponsored links on google, more often than not they are interesting, and they are the only ads I will click on.
Come on you webmasters out there, come up with something like sponsored links, I like my free internet!
One of the reasons I am soon to be leaving my bank, as they have piled on fees on top of fees for the last time. Every time I've had a credit union account, I've been very happy with the service and fee schedule; my only issue was the limited ATM availability. (Because federal banking laws prohibit credit unions from growing too large) This experience with a large commercial bank, however, has just made me feel used.
This is however seriously off-topic, and no longer relevant to internet ad revenue.
No one is FORCING you to make a living on the internet. There is no overseer of jobs that has deemed you a "webmaster", requiring you to make a living only on the internet through a website.
What if, before you could read a magazine article, you were forced to peel a sticker off of the content. A big sticker advertising the X-10 camera. Would that annoy you? What if you were driving down the highway or a residential street and you had to stop every 10-50 feet and wait for a large set of double doors to open before you could continue on your journey? A large set of doors that are telling you that your penis is too small, or heck even just telling you that the new Ford BigLargeHuge SUV gets good gas milage? Would that annoy you. How about a large ad that blocked 20-50% of the TV screen and in order to get rid of it you had to press a button on your remote, then during the next scene in the show the ad came back and you had to click again to get rid of it?
I think that, with the exception of the "information wants to be free" zelots, most people do not mind advertising done in content in the usual print manner e.g. either the content flows around the ad or the ads are in the margin of the pages. Salon.com has this, I've even played with the Absolut ads they display there from time to time. I stopped visiting ANY of the gamespy.com network of websites soley due to their use of the Flash ads that blocked the content and made a lot of noise (while I was at work no less!:)) I noticed that Maxim, FHM, and Stuff magazine are becoming even more homogenous in their content, sure they had the same type of articles ("How to score", "Some guy got hurt", etc...) but now they are even starting to have the SAME articles with even MORE advertisements. Well, there goes my subscription to all 3 of them.
What people object to is being forced to close a window, or click through an ad before getting to the content they came to the site to read (although I personally find those not too intrusive, more like turning the page in a magazine). We object to having cookies sent to us and having our online viewing habits tracked and having spam sent to us as a result. Sure I have to watch commercials on TV during the shows, but the network isn't tracking what I personally watch and correlating it with what I buy. Yeah, the magazines I read have ads in them, but they don't block the content.
Online advertising has done more to hurt the advertising industry than it has to help it. It has shown consumers the worst in marketers and advertisers.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
Ok; could you tell us what your company does do, or at least give us a link to your company's site?
We may not be interested in the service your company offers but I would at least be interested in knowing what that service is.
Terence Ross of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the news publishers' attorney, ... thinks Internet users who configure their browsers to disable graphics (a common tactic to boost the speed of Web surfing) are committing copyright infringement because they are interfering with Web publishers' exclusive right to control how their pages are displayed.
That's funny, I don't remember signing anything giving web publishers that right. I think everyone has forgotten that "web pages" were originally WYSIWYW, not WYSIWYG (what you want, vs. what you get), and everything else is just hinting.
If this is their attitude, why not just do everything (plus ads) in Flash? They'll make sure we see everything they want us to see, just like Cable TV. That'll teach us "leechers"
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
nytimes.com uses sneaky methods to get around Mozilla's pop-up blocking. In fact, the incompleteness of Mozilla's pop-up blocking is one reason Netscape 7.0 does not include it. The more people that use weak pop-up blocking, the weaker it becomes, because advertisers take time to study and exploit the weaknesses.
The shareholder is always right.
Really, porn has been the only true 'web business model' i've seen that works. Other things that work are mail order...but those businesses can exist without the internet, and in most cases their sites are just easier ways to order than on the phone (the company existed fine before the Internet became popular).
The GigaLaw article does not suggest that pop-up ads might be illegal, but only that using another party's content for the purposes of targetting ads (as Gator is doing) might be illegal.
If I run a webpage, I have every right to launch as many pop-up ads from it as I want ('course, if I'm smart, that number will be = 1...).
Since I'm not a real life web developer, I'm curious - is a reasonable course of action to push candidate fodder web pages through something like the W3 validator and have things work more of the time?
I'd really like to know, cause I'm a happy Mozilla user in a rising sea of IE 6 users. Hence, I'm advocating W3 standards rather than standards defined as "whatever the dominant application does".
But it would be some encouragement if compliance to the W3 standards (say HTML 4.01) would be sufficient to have web pages render properly in a maximal subset of browsers.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I use WebWasher. It has a lot of fairly decent features. One of the things I love about Mozilla is that its popup blocking appears to be fairly robust + you can toggle whether or not you use proxies (i.e. Webwasher) with a single click.
So now I use WebWasher for advertising blocking + privacy enhancement and use Mozilla to do the pop up blocking. If I need popups for a site or Webwasher munges some legit javascript, I can usually fix with a click and a reload.
Evolution: love it or leave it
If turning of web graphics in browsers is copyright infringement, then by the same token, people who only listen to the television rather than actually watch the thing would also be infringing on copyright, as are people who get up to go to the bathroom during commercials.
Guh! Terrance Ross, get a friggen clue! And while you're at it, get yourself an enema... it might help that retentive problem you seem to have
I apologize for the rant, but I really needed to vent on that issue.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They would either:
1.) Design their page just the way they want it (ads and all), then take a screenshot of it and upload the imegemapped-JPG as their website. Kinda hard to block parts of a JPG
2.) The main page does nothing but open a pop-up window and display a message in the main window that says "To continue, please follow the link in the pop-up."
And now I forsee myself getting flamed about "Why are you helping THEM?" Why? Because I think forcing their viewers to view advertisements will ultmately end up with them shooting themselves in the foot and forcing themselves off the web entirely. I'm willing to bet that their sites get X number of visitors mostly because a great many of them have the option of turning off advertisements in one way or another. Deny them that right, force them to decide between advertisements and no access, and they will ultimately choose the "no access" option every time.
End-user customers don't like pop-up ads, but corporate customers are paying for said pop-up ads. The will of the customer who spends the most money wins, right? In this case it's more like "the customer who spends any money wins." When you use Netscape (or any other free browser) you get exactly what you've paid for.
Why not a compromise? Offer Netscape 7.0 for download as it currently is, but offer it for sale on CD with the anti-popup feature. Rigorously advertise it as such. Let the end-users decide with their wallets how much they don't like pop-up ads. Heck, bump the price of the CD up to $15 or $20. The paying customer gets a browser with all the features they want, AOL/TW gets money in CD sales that they would have lost from the lack of pop-up ads, and the ad owners still have access to all the people who don't believe in paying for a browser.
Of course, I know exactly what kind of responses I'm going to get from the Slashdot crowd. "Browsers want to be free! I shouldn't have to pay for a feature that I can get elsewhere for free!" To you I have one thing to say: You're only perpetuating the current business model. Like it or not hosting costs money. I'm not in support of the loonies that say end-users must be forced to view advertising, but it will always be in those sites' best interests to use anti-ad-blocking software because the advertisers are their only paying customers. The "website subscription" model works because the end-user suddenly becomes a paying customer and immediately has more say to how the site owner should conduct business.
AOL/TW makes a great deal of their money from advertisers and pretty much $0 from their browsers. We have no right to bitch and moan about what AOL/TW does with their browser because our opinion is worth exactly what we paid for it. I for one would like to at least be given the option of being a real paying customer and having my say in how one of the major browsers on the internet today gets developed.
[goes off, does search] May be referring to one of these:
l /isenberg- 2002-08-all.html
- all/wood-2001 -10-all.html
Are Pop-Up Advertisements on the Web Illegal?
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-al
The Future of Online Advertising and Ad-Blocking
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Last time I checked, this company also makes a tidy profit.
The benefits can be seen in less obvious ways, too: MMPORGs seem to be making money for at least one company I can think of. Not to mention the impact had on software companies, who can now release beta software on a human-scale cycle, and trivially manage patching and upgrades for all their customers via the Internet.
I think the rule of thumb is that companies who use the Internet in support of (or as an extension of) a well-established business with a proven model are doing quite well, thank you very much.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
The article asserts that the best way to block pop-ups in Mozilla/Netscape is to enable the option in the Preferences, or manually add this line to your prefs.js:user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);However, as has been pointed out, this only disables popups in the onload="" tag, and is simple for sites to work around.
The BEST way to TOTALLY BLOCK unrequested popups in Mozilla/Netscape is to add a line like this to your prefs.js:user_pref("dom.disable_open_click_delay", 1000); where 1000 is a number in milliseconds. Any window.open which takes place more than this delay aftera mouseclick will NEVER be processed. This type of blocking is pretty much impossible to get around; I haven't seen an unrequested popup in forever and a day. And requested ones work fine because they are in response to a mouse click. I really can't see how any sites can get around this block, short of using a window.setTimeout to try opening the window over and over again until it succeeds.
Guess what? If the standard is ignored, it doesn't reflect reality. Your point is circular. You've made no argument for ignoring standards; you've simply argued that certain companies ignore them now. And they shouldn't. It may be a sneaky way to short-term control of a market, but in the longer term it promotes chaos, which does not help anyone.
Don't act like the W3C is some sort of fascist or socialist bureaucracy. Membership is open to anyone who wants in. The agenda of the w3c is created by its members. If you have a problem with the standards, join the organization and participate in the democratic process. Standards are not being defended by anyone here as an a priori good; the point is that an external standards organization is an excellent means to a specific end -- cross platform interoperability -- in such a way that various agenda might be represented, rather than simply the agenda of MSFT shareholders.
The more I think about it the more I think they could make a serious dent in IE's user base with this idea...
Netscape World Headquarters
P. O. Box 7050
Mountain View, CA 94039-7050
Dear Netscape:
I recently purchased a copy of your Netscape 6.2 browser on CD and until today was looking forward to purchasing Netscape 7.0 as soon as it was released. I enjoy being able to use a widely-supported browser that is both independet from and agnostic to my operating system, and was eagerly awaiting the time Netscape would include the rest of the features I enjoy from Mozilla 1.0.
I say "until today" because I just learned that Netscape 7.0 will not be including one of the features of Mozilla 1.0 that I was looking forward to, the option to turn off unrequested windows that effectively kills pop-up advertising on the web. Because of that I do not forsee myself using anything but Mozilla as my web browser of choice for the forseeable future.
I realize that your parent company, AOL/Time-Warner, earns a great deal of income from business customers who purchase such pop-up advertising from them. I also realize that, since Netscape is now distributed free of charge, the opinion of the end-users who paid no money is insignifigant compared to the opinion of the business customers that have paid a great deal of money. However I as an end-user seriously dislike the idea of having my software hijacked by a remote website.
I would like to offer a compromise.
I want to use a web browser that is both supported by the vast majority of plug-in writers and allows me to avoid pop-up advertising. In fact, I would pay money for such a web browser. I doubt I am alone in this opinion as the ability to disable pop-up windows has been one of the driving features of the so-called "niche" browsers available today (such as Mozilla). In fact I can think of many Microsoft Internet Explorer users who would rather use such a browser.
Why not offer Netscape 7.0 in two versions? Make your intended version of Netscape 7.0 available as a free download, but allow those of us who would rather the end-user have a greater say in browser development to pay for a "deluxe" version on CD, which would include the ability to disable pop-up ads as well as any other new features you can think up. Perhaps include some other perks with the bundled software (Composer with a JavaScript editor? Shiney new Winamp-branded MP3 encoder? "Deluxe Only" Netscape radio stations?) Rigorously advertise it as option. $20.00 US to $25.00 seems like a reasonable price for such a product. On the one hand, users such as myself will finally have the browser we've been waiting for since the development of the openWindow JavaScript command. On the other hand the price of the deluxe version will offset any lost revenue from your advertisers. And you would be able to appease any misgivings from your advertisers by pointing out that the majority of Netscape users would still be using the free "basic" version with manditory pop-ups.
I'm not advocating releasing Netscape 7.0 as "shareware" or "crippleware." Those who aren't interested in paying money for a web browser should still have access to Netscape 7.0 as it now stands, something they have come to expect in a free web browser. But by the same token those of us who are interested in paying money for such features should be given access to them.
I hope that your executives can see the value in my suggested compromise before the scheduled release of Netscape 7.0.
P. S. I realize the idea of a Winamp-branded MP3 encoder would probably give the executives at AOL/Time-Warner nightmares, but look at it this way: Users with access to an MP3 player but no immediate knowledge of "ripping CDs" are more likely to turn to file-sharing networks to find MP3 files to play than their own CD libraries.