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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
Netscape is basically a branded version of Moz with some slight tweaks (like some UI, or the lack of popup blocking), so don't expect to get anything extra. But if Netscape does abandon their browser, and only makes it availible for embedding, that would also mean that there would be no Netscape engineers working on any part of the browser outside Gecko, and I fear how Mozilla's UI mess would escalate without even the little guidance it has now, so be careful what you wish for ;).
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
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.
"Content" companies don't believe you should have control over the device you use to access web pages (or movies, or music..). For the user to grant or deny "permission" is a ludicrous concept to them.
I think "Trustworthy Computing", Palladium etc will go some of the way towards addressing this - you will slowly have less and less control over the viewing platform. If you choose to use an alternate viewing platform (eg a pre-Palladium PC), you simply won't be able to view a lot of things. If you attempt to get your old computer to display new content, or to wrest back control of a computer that implements Digital Restriction Management, you'll be in violation of the DMCA (or your local equivalent).
No, but you should be aware that pop-under ads, if associated with your site, will make more people block ads on your site than without (or just make them not visit your site anymore), because they are a hell more annoying.
Remember that you're doing a deal. Of course you can use ads to get money. But ads alone won't get you money - you need visitors or your fancy ads are worthless anyway. So a good webmaster should do anything to not annoy his visitors.
Now think about popunder ads again...
You're wrong. Most importantly, there is this difference between "ad killer" and "popup add killer". For many people, ads are okay, but they really, really hate it if a mere web site causes their browsers to open unrequested windows.
Popup killers don't cut revenue. It's the webmasters own decision to switch to popup/popunder ads (for more cash from the marketing people). If they do this, they have to expect that they are annoying their customers/visitors and that they will block it.
It's perfectly their own fault.
If a website can't live without the financial bonus of popup ads, then it's dead anyway.
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.