Slashdot Mirror
Pop-Up Ads Lead to Consumer Revolt, Ad-Blocking
securitas writes "The New York Times' Saul Hansell reports on pop-up advertising and the consumer backlash against intrusive advertising. It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form. The article discusses the boom in ad-blocker software, with AOL, Yahoo and Google getting into the game. Microsoft says that it will include pop-up blocking in IE when it releases WinXP SP2. According to one pop-under ad agency, 20%-25% percent of Web users have pop-up blocking enabled, double the rate of a year ago - Earthlink's numbers bear that out, with 1 million of its 5 million customers using its ad-blocking software 18 months after release. DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
Flashy, animated image ads on websites are just about as annoying about as much as pop-ups. Fortunately the Mozilla family of web browsers allows the user to block images from specific servers, which seems to work well in targeting ad-serving servers (doubleclick.com being one of the worst) yet leaving the ornamental graphics intact.
Thanks to this, I've pretty much squashed the "Get 1,000 Smileys Free" advertisements.
Now if there were only a way to block certain Flash advertisements and still be able to watch Strong Bad answering his e-mail.
I find it strange that companies like DoubleClick and X10 believe that advertising is most effective when maximally annoying. Google's advertising is a perfect example of how targeted advertising -- matching keywords to ads, tracking the effectiveness of ads, and showing ads where they are most effective -- can be quite profitable. And they're doing it with text-only ads, no flash, graphics taking over your entire screen, or pop ups.
At best, popup ads and other annoyances seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, sacrificing long-term customer satisfaction of the many who are subject to these ads and overall brand reputation for a potential short-term boost in sales from the few customers that do click through on annoying ads. For example, because I hate their ads so much, I would never buy any product from X10.
But I actually find Google's ads useful and click on them frequently because they're so well targeted to whatever I happen to be looking for. Targeted ads work. They show information or a product that's actually useful to me without getting in my way. Why do other advertisers continue to annoy customers with useless and irrelevant popup ads?
Earthlink is saying that 1 out of 5 of their customers were using their pop-up blocking 18 months after its release - what about Earthlink customers who use another form of pop-up blocking?
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Is it not illegal to do circumventing of technology. So would this not be a violation of the DMCA. Ok sorry bad joke, but in reality, this would really hurt double click, think about it, there are people that said "we hate pop ups so much we will disable them" and double click is saying not to us, would that not create bad PR for them, if I was looking to do ads I don't think I would use double click because it would just anger people against my product, I don't see web ads as bad, but if some one disables pop-ups, I don't think I would want to have my ad come up as a pop-up that would just put me on their "do not buy from" list. just my 2c.
A flaming duh to you NYTimes!
We do not like being inundated with crap.
Those that say well, they must make something off of it or they wouldn't do it:
I say horseshit. I think it's one giant dumbass ring of spammers and scum bouncing
money for lists off each other.
yeehaaa.
Sent from your iPad.
Too bad, now websites will instead of using pop ups as a revenue use annoying flash ads and pop ins. Which is too bad since atm I get the content for free without having to watch their ads.
:D
Oh and I don't see flash ads or pop ins or anything like that, thanks to pithelmet and safari
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
Isn't it nice that they have to wait for a whole XP service pack to be qualified and released before they can get an update to IE so they can block pop-ups, something that most other current browsers provide and some of those for a while.
;-)
That is innovation for ya
...the programmers who work on popup blocking at AOL/Google/MozillaFirebird'll just work a bit harder and eventually stop their uber-popups from coming through. The era of the pop-up/under/other sort of spawning window is coming to a well-overdue end.
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
Bye bye Doubleclick ads...
I paid for it, I can refuse to download doubleclick.net images because I paid for the bandwidth.
And, if you use Mozilla/Firebird, get your handy dandy CSS ad blocking file. It makes heavy use of CSS3-ish stuff, so it can't be used by Opera or IE.
Lets just start all over and scrap the internet.
You realize that if you block pop-ups, that you're stealing Internet service. In fact, this is even worse than what TIVO users are doing by stealing television. At least in TIVO's case, it can't skip over "live" broadcasting.
You are all just a bunch of sick criminals.
--
Jamie Kellner
Chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting
Courtesy of Mozilla Firebird and the Adblocker extension, I NEVER EVER see any ads. I love destroying business models.
none of you blocks ads from our good friends at Slashdot, hrmmm???
I've been using flashswitch to stop annoying flash adds. So far so good, I just wish it would be automatic.
Why not try and advertise something that someone *WANTS* to purchase-- Maybe *THEN* you won't have to evade a protection I put on my computer because I don't want to deal with your crap.
/Ex
Why is this so hard? Google's apparently doing a pretty good job of it-- Sure you need a lot more customers, but for the love of frank, I don't need any goddamned spy cameras, I don't have a babysitter or a cheating spouse, or for that matter a misbehaving dog.
yep, next thing you know, those companies who make huge use of pop ups and pop unders will sue MS for lost revenue :) Will it even surprise you?
and how long will it be before some one start fighting witht he claim that the otherones software violates the DMCA. it seam this argument is the way everyone fights things today.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
I usually use Firebird, so I never see pop-ups. Even when I do use IE, I have the Google toolbar installed, so I don't see popups.
But every once in awhile, I use someone else's computer with an un-modified IE on it. I can't believe there are still so many sites using pop-ups. It is user hostile and gives the visitor a bad impression of your site.
solution: echo "127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net " >> /etc/hosts
^_^
funny thing is, yahoo also has included a pop up blocker
didnt yahoo had pop up banners too?
how ironic
hahahahaha! I've not seen any since I started using Mozilla Firebird! hahahaha
It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form.
Incorrect. Search advertising such those offered by Google (AdWords), Overture and numerous other players are better in terms of click-throughs, conversion rates, or any other relevant measure of advertising effectiveness. The same goes for online yellow pages advertising.
The point of these "directional" forms of advertising is that the consumer identifies a need or an area of interest before the ad is displayed. The very reason why this advertising is less annoying - its relevance - is why it is effective.
The hosts file on http://remember.mine.nu is the best example to begin blocking all those annoying advertisement and popup services.
:)
Besides using browsers which allow popup blocking (like Mozilla) this is one of the best methods to ignore them all.
Install this good example of useful data and be happy
Those smileys ads are my favorite--those stupid little creatures in their two frame animations really get a giggle out of me, especially since I can't imagine how they expect to make money off that stuff. The ones that really irk me are the 60fps flashing hot pink and yellow ones that proclaim that I'm a winner!
I love the fact that the link to the story in the main post not only generates a pop-up ad, but also has an ad on the page that takes up about 50% of the width ( on this low res anyway :P ). *sigh*
...these mainstream technology articles that talk about how evil pop-ups are, and don't even mention browsers with built-in popup-blockers like Mozilla or Opera?
William Smith doesn't have a forehead, he's got a fivehead!
...but firewalls and AV software as well.
My hard drive blew up last week, and when rebuilding my system, I skipped ZoneAlarm and installed Kerio Personal Firewall instead... an incredible piece of software if I do say so myself, but it also has built in ad blocking (and configurable to add more blocking).
Not that that matters too much since I am using FireBird, but a two pronged approach is better than one.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
People seem to be unquestioningly talking about 'blocking' pop-ups as though your computer had to actively take measures to avoid these intrusions. But all it means is using a web browser that does not execute the Javascript code. There are plenty of browsers with no Javascript at all, and it is not part of any HTML standard.
Similarly, using lynx is not 'image blocking'.
There is a grey area when you try to have Javascript support enabled but limit the things a script is allowed to do. But really this is just closing security holes in the original Javascript specs (popups are a form of DoS attack).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Yet these companies feel the need to try and block the software, these numbers show, the people are fed up. They think the 5% of morons who buy stuff via popups justify pissing off the majority of people out there. Honestly it's getting to the point that I don't even want to use the WWW anymore. Whatever good there was left in it has been just killed by any attempt possible to make a buck. Start e-mailing web pages telling them you will no longer frequent them because of obtrousive advertising, and don't just idly e-mail them, actually do it! Stop using web sites with popups, no matter how much you may like the content. A little civil disobiedence never hurt anyone. The power is in your hands people.
Golly, I'm glad Microsoft is all over this one, because God knows nobody else would ever have thought to do it.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Doubleclick is attempting to evade the pop-up blockers? See, this is something that's always boggled my mind. People are using popup blockers because they don't want to receive popups. As such, they respond in a hostile manner to popup ads, and may more than likely be dissuaded from using any product advertised in such a fashion. The consumer, by using a blocker, is making a statement that they do not want to be advertised to in this way, that they find it intrusive, and that they will not respond to this form of advertising positively.
What makes these companies think that finding means to actively go against consumers' wishes will be an effective way to earn their business? It's like the do-not-call registry. If I opt to be put on the do-not-call list, that means I have no intention of buying anything from a telemarketer. As such, the companies are not losing any of my business because I was never going to give them my business in the first place. If anything, they're saving money by not having to waste the 15 seconds it takes to call me and find out I'm not interested.
Common sense, people...
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
In my opinion the strength of the computer industry lies in it's ability to solve a given problem with many different tools. There are different programming languages, different architectures... etc etc.
That's fine and dandy but it obviously works against us in cases like these where pop-up ad's are able to circumvent and/or bypass our attempts to stop them.
Imagine for a moment that there was only ONE browser to use, one language to program in, one way to view the web (excluding the fights that ensue over who currently controls those types of things). If there were only one way to do things, we'd be able to block these pop-up/under dicks without a problem. Unfortunately with an over abundance of tools available it becomes a (and forgive the analogy) game of push-down/pop-up. We stop them in one area or with one tool and they find a way around it.
Granted we do the same thing in other industries and sectors but I wonder sometimes if maybe the technology world has gone overboard with it's developing of choices.
I think choice is fundamentally a good thing, it's necessary and has it's function in the grand scheme of things... but I think it's high-time people organized and started trimming down some of those extranneous choices, not that there has to be *one* way of always doing thing or even *two* or *three*... but for christ's sake, when is it all enough?
I've always thought of keeping a pad and pencil beside my phone, and write down on it every single company which trys to telemarket to me on a Saturday morning. But do I ever do it? No. I'm too lazy. I figure this is what the pop-under advertisers count on. Divide and conquer us, hope we never talk to each other and rise up as a consumer "union," and hope to god I never get around to writing down company names on that pad.
As people always point out to me, if they actually make more money than they lose doing this, then they'll never, ever stop trying to do it. They'll always find ways to get around the technology, and, knowing, Microsoft, they'll always leave a year-long window open for those advertising mechanisms to work.
But then, I'm preaching to the choir.
I had no idea how appalling it had gotten with pop-up ads. On my desktop machine I use Proxomitron and I rarely see them but the other day I connected online with my laptop (which has no pop-up blocking software) and I was hit with a barrage of them at almost every mainstream site I went to -- except for my own.
I really feel for people with older machines who surf and don't use a blocker. My laptop is old and the thing practically bogged down with all the bloody pop-ups that kept opening up.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
This escalating war will probably continue for awhile yet, but the fundamental question remains.
How do we, the Internet using population, pay for it?
Pop-ups are very annoying, which is why Mozilla is set to block them. Spam is very annoying, which is why my ISP blocks most of that.
The seemingly endless paid listings at the top of Google are useless AND annoying, which is why I'm looking for other search engines. (Hmmm or maybe a Google plug-in that would block the junk listings and leave the legitimate content??)
Still, at the end of the day, how do all of these websites and services get paid for? You need only look at on-line newspapers to realize that every day more of them are placing the bulk of their content behind a gate that requires at least registration, and often a paid subscription.
Three Squirrels
"Microsoft says that it will include pop-up blocking in IE when it releases WinXP SP2." Innovation at its finest, right Bill?
blog |
make pop-up and pop-under blocking somehow an "effective digital protection" scheme, doubleclick will be in violation of the DMCA for writing code to evade that protection?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/19/technology/19eco m.html?ex=1389934800&en=5b1cf221151d8850&ei=5007&p artner=GOOGLE">its gonna get much worse
Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.
The new ad technology, from Unicast, an advertising company based in New York, invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page, then displays the ad across the entire browser area when users click to a new page. The resulting ad is identical to TV, whether the user has a high- or low-speed connection. The company says the technology evades pop-up blockers, but the person can skip the ad by clicking a box.
thanks, no need to remind me to add your servers to the Hostfile Project
Most people don't understand what their computers can do, right now. I regularly amaze the users I support by helping them back up data and so forth, sometimes transferring data - like magic - over the network. People are amazed when they see they can send a document to their friend ... without using e-mail! It's all relatively mundane stuff, but it's beyond the comprehension of people who use computers ... drumroll please ... EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. Think about that. Is there any other industry where regular, daily users of a technology are nevertheless bumbling novices at it?
I think it will take Microsoft's inclusion of this in IE to really shift these numbers. Until technology is forced upon people, most won't even realize they have the option.
With Adblock we will simply block *.doubleclick.com. Go ahead doubleclick with your new project that will cost you time and money but will ultimately be a yet another failure.
...is the public's misconception about pop-up ads. Due to the slick marketing of AOL and Earthlink et al, when their screen becomes full of ads, they call up their internet service provider and give them tons of grief. I see my (less than savvy) friends pay fees to companies like AdsGone (i think it's $50/year to use the software) to get rid of "popups" by automatically closing them when they open.
But the other issue, is that 99% of the time when someone is getting the shit hammered out of them by popup ads it is because they've got about 15 parasites embedded into IE that sits and serves them all day.
True "pop up ads" only occur when you enter a site, or leave a site, and shouldn't just pop up spontaneously whenever the computer is on, regardless of whether or not you are on the inet. I've seen computers so laden with these that they are completely useless- you start the machine up, and it serves so many ads in the first minute that it crashes. But once again, the customers do not understand this, they simply blame their ISP.
Finally, the latest thing that i'm seeing (i work in tech support if you haven't figured this out yet)....
people will call up yelling and screaming and bitching and moaning about all these pop up ads they're getting. So i look at their computer and i start pointing to such things as Precision Time, or WeatherBug, or all these other "adware" programs they've installed as the culprit. They understand it when i tell them, but then i get things like "but i LIKE my Desktop Calender, i don't want you to remove it." or "but i LIKE my Huntbar." or "but i LIKE the MYWAY software, i want to keep it." and stuff. They will bitch about the ads, i tell them why they are getting them, but they don't want to fix it. However, this still doesn't stop them from calling up and bitching about the ads every other week.
It's a no-win situation for all concerned. I hate blanket statements, but the fact is, most of the people on the internet don't deserve to be there and will always be miserable, no matter how much you try to help them.
do() || do_not();
The problem is this:
1) Bandwidth is expensive.
2) Content isn't free.
3) Web users refuse to pay for the vast majority of their content.
4) Web users quickly learn to ignore any form of advertising.
Until that knot is unraveled advertising will get increasingly obnoxious. Look at your spam to see how far a distance there is until rock bottom is hit.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I have no idea who to boycott because I use Firebird and never even think about pop-ups.
Making software that evades my security measures is wrong.
If I purposely put in place software to protect me from viewing popup ads, and you circumvent it you may be guilty of a "hacking" crime.
I did not authorize you to pop up ads on my computer, I explicitly configured to prevent this.
By enabling your software to evade my blocking software you can't claim that you were authorized.
When I take steps to avoid something, you can't claim implied consent anymore.
I clicked on the url attached to your name as was subjected to an onslaught of popups(one even brought up a save file prompt). At least they did stop eventualy. Still pretty greasy.
The / in
When I read the article last night, I was disappointed that they have no mention of Opera or Mozilla. This is the Technology section isn't it? Shouldn't they have some awareness of the built-in Pop-Up blockers? And isn't it important to know (from my understanding) that Mozilla still downloads the ads but doesn't display them? Is that taken into account in any of the statistics?
Granted Mozilla doesn't have large userbase, but if the Technology section of one of the biggest papers in the world isn't going to report on it, then mozilla will increase user base slower because people won't know about it (since it's reported less in mainstream media) and it reduces the reputation of the paper. I know lack of reporting on this is common, but it still galls me. People continue not to realize that better solutions than MSIE. And the developers continue to develop only for MSIE. and you know the whole routine. it's just sickening...
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Can those morons at doubleclick really think it's a good idea to make ads evade ad blocking software? If people don't want to see the ads, why show them?
They're like the guest that won't leave. Take a hint.
Legislation sucks. Can't we just make it illegal to advertise to people who have taken steps to prevent that particular method of advertising from reaching them?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Adblock is your friend. Unfortunately, it appears to be /.-ed already:
.
http://adblock.mozdev.org/
It blocks anything you want via a wildcard. For example, you can block http://ad.* or http://www.realmedia*
It's always darkest before
"I don't want to see pop-ups blocked," said Matthew R. Coffin, the chief executive of LowerMyBills.com, a site that sells long distance and other services. Pop-up and pop-under ads, he said, attract more people than any other ad format. "People wouldn't click if they weren't interested."
The toolbar on each pop-up window is often disabled and the window itself just displays a large image which doesn't allow the average web surfer to easily close it. I think most people just click on it by accident or because they don't know what else to do. I am curious to know what the percentage is of people who click on the ads and actually purchase something. I suspect it is less than 1%.
This is bullshit.
http://tomgould.com/
When our company or clients want to do online advertising, we Google Ad Words and on a couple hobby sites I run, I use exclusively Ad Words and I've the best Click Thru rates and ROI on both ends. And I have used every form including pop ups before. I found most clicks from pop-ups are acidental. People go to close them and click on them.
Kudos to Google for figuring out an excellent method of delivering non-intrusive targeted keywords.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
How long did it take the government to act "against" spam? More importantly, how effective has it been? Apparently, not very.
How much longer will it be until they take notice of popups?
Certainly something is being violated if users intentionally install software to intentionally block popups, yet these companies persist in developing circumventing measures to bypass the will of the users. At least with television you can change to another channel without getting flooded with ads. With some of these websites, closing one popup results in 3 more, which subsequently results in 3 times 3, and so forth.
The result is a dramatic decline in quality and content as the ratio of usable information to advertisements online shift, and it's moves like this (developing methods around popup blocking software) which tip the scales towards the ads, and a less usable medium to transfer valid information.
In addition to popup blockers, using a hosts file is a great way to block ads.
Just add
127.0.0.1 adserver.example.com
to your hosts file, and never see ads from them again.
I used to use Netscape 4.7x as my main browser. Turning off Javascript solved (at the time anyway, dunno about now) all intrusive ads.
I have yet to encounter a web site where JS is required, though I have no doubt they exist.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Hey all, quick question. Speaking of annoying ads, a co-worker used my computer once and installed Flash 6. Consequently, now I see those flashy, annoying ads that you can't stop. I preferred the calm, big white box with the puzzle piece in it instead. How can I remove Flash from my Mozilla install? I've scoured all the directories where Mozilla is installed, and I can't find anything remotely resembling mflash6.dll or anything like that. Suggestions?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
1. I decide I don't like pop-ups.
2. I install a pop-up blocker.
3. You use pop-ups to advertise your product.
4. Your pop-up manages to avoid my blocker.
5. I see your ad and I think "Oh it's *that* product! Oh well that's okay then, I don't mind at all that *that* product is being pushed at me. I will buy that product immediately!"
Do you honestly think that's how it will happen?
If a company's first form of contact with me is showing me a form of intrusive, annoying advert that I have specifically decided to avoid then I will simply *not* buy that company's product! No ifs, no buts, no exceptions to the rule. Annoy me in such a selfish, arrogant way and you lose a potential customer.
But hey, I'm the only person who thinks that way, aren't I?
IE users know that Alt+F4 kills pop-up windows that have the focus.
Use F5 for flash adds (page reload)
On most pages, they only show you the flash add once. Just reload the page (F5) and it will not replay. (unless you block cookies)
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
I would love to see Flash Manager like Image Manager in Mozilla. I want to control which Flash servers to block.
There are legit Flash that need to be allowed to work.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://www.alanofdale.net/download/hosts.zip
it blocks over 62,000 different ad servers. So all I get is a blank space where an ad is suppost to be.
Enjoy!
Can Smeg!!! Will Smeg!!!
CEOs and other high up exec types seem to forget they are consumers too and only go after the mighty buck. Now I agree that it is good to make a dollar, as it allows me to by food and computers and stuff.
For example Double Click is "finding a way to get around popups" solely so the people who use them for advertising will still think they will get their moneoes worth.
See the problem is if I were the guys running doubleclick I would think, boy those pop ups are annoying, oh wait my company does them, maybe I sould find another line of work. Also the compnaies that use doubleclick, don't they ever browse websites that have popups.
I just don't get it.
Is there no hope to stop this madness? Next to slashdot, this is the biggest consumer/waster of my time during the day!
Dear Doublecl*ck, We block your popups because we don't want to see them. Signed Earthings,
If they weren't so damn obnoxious, people wouldn't be installing popup blockers. Give them an inch, they take a mile. When will they learn that they don't have a right to be heard? Make reasonable ads that don't flash, take over the screen etc and people will stop killing them at the source.
How much longer until someone makes an free program that installs a hosts file that kills ads at the source for Joe Sixpack? If such a program were to be become prolific much of the present Internet ad model would collapse. For that matter, are there any flash stoppers for IE (use at work)?
Bring it on Doubleclick! It'll be a fucking frosty day in hell when I ever buy anything from any company that advertises with you. Doubleclick will do all of that work only to have companies that make pop-up blocking software figure out a way to block the new kind of pop-up ads and shut them down again. The problem is that as long as even 0.0001% of users are stupid enough to click the pop-ups and actually buy something there will always be scum sucking, bottom feeding companies that will do what Doubleclick does. It's just like the spam problem. All of us pay because of the few rocket scientists who buy things that are advertised via pop-ups and spam. I just hope these tools don't reproduce, but we all know they will. In fact, they are the type that tend to reproduce most.
"Hey, what the hell Bobby Sue, let's have another 13 kids we can't afford to feed. Hey, Bobby Sue, lookie here, it says here in my e-lectronic mail that they've get these new fangeled pills that can enlarge my penis. Heeeee hah! I'm saving this here message and if I can't find these babies at Wal-Mart then I'll just click this here website and buy these puppies. Your 4 credit cards aren't still maxed out is they Bobby Sue?"
One of the best way to eliminate most ads (of all types- popups, banners, etc) is to prevent your computer from finding the ads. Most major online advertisers use a very small number of major ad distributors; if you block the small number of distributors, you block out 75% of all advertising. Go here to find out more. This works for all OS's.
granted this shows that I'm a windows user but I hate it when extra software like bonzi buddy, n-case, or any other software like it to bring up ads, popup windows, adds crap to my favorites, won't let you change your home page anymore, and gives me "free access" to porn. I've accidently had some installed but my moron of a sister seems to get the same crap installed every time she uses it. Ad-aware is great but doesn't have real time scanning or blocking.
But then my mac works great with no instances of that crap. YAY!
To me at least. All those popup ads were seen by the vast majority of internet users. Now when the most popular browser disables popups the advertisers will stop using popups and start to concentrate on those pop-ins, flash and whatnot within the normal page.
And that's what scares me - how do i block advertisement flying across the screen on a dthml-layer? How would a browser choose between useful content and advertisement in order to block it? I can see me running Mozilla with CSS and DOM scripting turned off in the not so far future... or switching to links on console ;)
There is no way to effectively evade popup blocking software using JavaScript. If the browser is configured not to allow JavaScript to open windows, then it is not going to open JavaScript windows. Some popup blocking software will only block popups opened in a certain fashion (the way typical ad pop-ups/unders are opened) but are designed to allow popups that appear to be opened in direct response to a user click. It won't take long for the blockers to alter there software to not allow ANY popups, unless the site is on a user-specified whitelist.
This leads me to believe they might be talking about using Flash or ActiveX. The latter isn't a big problem, as we'll just chose to not allow such ActiveX controls to be launched. My experience with Flash is very limited, but I believe it is possible to get Flash to launch a pop-up window. I'm uncertain as to whether Flash must use JavaScript to interface with the browser to open such windows or if it communicates with the browser through another means? Either way, so long as Mozilla exists, there will not be popups if you don't want them.
I don't understand why DoubleClick would want to start such an arms race. The net effect is that banner advertising would be cast in the same light as the MPAA/RIAA folks among geeks, and DoubleClick will wind up the worse for it. Most people find popups annoying, but tolerate banners just fine. If they "declare war", no one's going to have a moral issue with simply blocking everything from doubleclick and then some, and installing such software on every computer they happen to encounter (friends, family, coworkers, etc). I'm not saying such universal ad blocking would be a good thing for online content, but I do think it will happen if the marketers get too obnoxious.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Well friends, here's a part of my /etc/hosts file: :^)
(Please note there's hundreds of lines more)
I hope you get the picture..
127.0.0.1 webads.bizservers.com
127.0.0.1 www.PostMasterBannerNet.com
127.0.0.1 www.ad-up.com
127.0.0.1 www.admex.com
127.0.0.1 www.alladvantage.com
127.0.0.1 www.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 www.commission-junction.com
127.0.0.1 www.eads.com
127.0.0.1 www.freestats.com
127.0.0.1 www.imaginemedia.com
127.0.0.1 www.netdirect.nl
127.0.0.1 www.oneandonlynetwork.com
127.0.0.1 www.targetshop.com
127.0.0.1 www.teknosurf2.com
127.0.0.1 www.teknosurf3.com
127.0.0.1 www.valueclick.com
127.0.0.1 www.websitefinancing.com
127.0.0.1 www2.burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 www4.trix.net
127.0.0.1 www80.valueclick.com
127.0.0.1 z.extreme-dm.com
127.0.0.1 z0.extreme-dm.com
127.0.0.1 z1.extreme-dm.com
perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'
Simple solution--use Mozilla.
Sound-containing ads (I presume the Flash-based things some others have complained of?). I have to keep my computer on mute in order to surf at school, lest movie clips and what-not suddenly start blasting over the speakers. I realize that advertisers don't want to pay for ads that no one notices, and websites are hard enough to support as is, but this sort of thing IMO goes too far. None of these tops in my view the most clever intrusive ad tactic I've ever seen (in my pre- "block html graphics" days). There was a porn spam that obscured part of their own ad with a picture of a pop-up window that had a "close" X on it. Of course, clicking on the X, as most of us do by instinct, had the same effect as clicking anywhere else on the ad. If only these folks would apply their ingenuity to good instead of evil....
JavaScript is the cause. Turn it off, problem solved. Good browsers (everything except MSIE) allow you to selectively disable the parts of JavaScript that cause the worst problems, so if you feel a need to have some JavaScript you can still disable the really bad parts. Did I mention pages tend to load faster without it, as well?
I can't believe there's a market for pop-up blocking software. I can't believe people still use MSIE. Microsoft has obscured how to disable JavaScript.
What do you think is the best for the end-user: legislation or competition? Or is there an even better alternative?
Legislation would mean we pass a law that basically says that this type of advertising is no longer legal.
Competition would basically mean that we keep writing software to block this stuff, and we also keep writing software to defect the blockers.
What are your thoughts on this?
There is no such thing as popup blocking software. Mozilla doesn't block anything, it just removed a feature in javascript where pages could direct a new browser window to open without user interaction. A feature that should never have been there in the first place.
Saying that it is pop-up blocking puts a spin on it like you are stopping something. Saying that not opening browser windows when a webpage says that you should is "blocking" makes the default, absurdly, that your computer should do anything an untrusted party on the Internet tells it to do (since otherwise it is "blocking").
This is like if you passed a guy every day on your way to work who told you pull your pants down in the middle of the street, and you did it obediently. You don't need a "pants blocker" to stop that from happening, and you aren't blocking anything when you tell him shove it. You shouldn't be doing what random people tell you to do in the first place.
It is so important that this is emphasized. Nobody on the web can ever you do anything to you, make you watch anything, or make your computer act in any way. ONLY THE SOFTWARE YOU ARE RUNNING CAN MAKE THE COMPUTER DO THINGS. If your computer does things you don't want it to, it isn't the Internet's fault, it isn't the advertisers fault, it isn't the guy who wrote the javascript hack in his pages fault, and it isn't the guy who thought of using the window.open() command for adds fault.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT BLOCKING: IT IS ABOUT DEMANDING THAT THE SOFTWARE YOU USE DOES WHAT YOU WANT IT TO. It is about time people started doing that, and not swallow everything that Microsoft feeds them!
I don't like Pop-Up ads anymore than the next guy. Unfortunately, advertisement is a necessary evil on the Web. Without advertisers, the Internet would shrink to a mere shadow of its current self. However, my question is not why we have advertisers, but why those advertisers insist on getting in our face?
I don't know about you, but pops up that block my view only piss me off. I'd venture a guess that I'm not alone here. The ads which get my attention, and the ones most likely to elicit a positive response, are the unobtrusive ads to the right or top of the screen. I wish Internet advertisers would wise up to that.
Google's Toolbar v2 stopped the pop-up/unders for me on IE6 while Mozilla/Firebird and Konqueror have stopped them for me without add-ons.
But I have not found a solution for Flash-overs, that is, flash monstrosities that overwhelm the content of a page.
It's so incredibily annoying I'm beginning to understand why we need to repeal the ban on automatic weapons in the workplace.
Anyway, how about a "disable Flash" button? Or just a STOP THE MOVEMENT button to make a freakin' page readible without needing Dramamine. If newspaper ads twirled, flipped, burped and gyrated I'd meet the paperboy with a full metal jacket each morning until it stopped.
.
.
.
.
Medication? Yes I took it this morning, why do you ask?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.'
And on a completely unrelated note, DoubleClick's stock price dropped today, an astounding 53%.
It's sad, because they just don't get it (tm).
Only problem is the javascript bugs that occur since the page is referencing some image or file from their site.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
So... DoubleClick says it's coming up with a way to evade the pop-up blocker.
I'd imagine it looks something like what sites like www.tek-tips.com are doing. Instead of a top-level window, they do some fancy CSS that slides a box in front of the viewable content on the screen. Tek-Tips is using it as part of their content, because they want to bring something to your attention, but I could easily see this method being abused by annoying ad campaigns e.g. DoubleClick.
That'll be a lot harder to block, but it'll be blocked eventually. *sigh* just like spam vs. spam blocking, it's going to be another arms race.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
In addition to blocking popus, I'd suggest using a carefully crafted hosts file. Just add
127.0.0.1 adserver.example.com
to your hosts file and never see an ad from them again.
Here is a very well-maintained file with lots of servers blocked.
Doubleclick advertisement server.
You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
I run a Mom n Pop computer shop and we recently added a $29 feature we call the "Privacy Pack", and it has been wildly popular.
We do several things: We install the google toolbar (for popup blocking), we configure the hosts file (to block almost all ad companies), and we configure IE's cookie settings (and active X) to better protect privacy.
People love it, and for $29 its not a bad deal. This is in addition to the virus scanner which all our PCs include.
Pop-ups and pop-unders have always done more harm than good. Though, most advertising strategy never works on me anyway - I don't understand how DoubleClick (et.al.) feel they're not creating a Bad image for these products because of the annoyance. The animated .gifs with moving high-contrast colors are also bad - I get a headache when they're too flashy.
I think the best way for these advertisements to be (other than non-existant), is just woven into the page. You read the headline and first paragraph, and then scroll down past the ad, then read the rest. No negative associations with the product! The best way for advertisers to do that is to simply make the ad to the left or right of the text. At least users see the ad longer.
Stuff that matters.
Popup Blocker is just a band-aid. Instead of identifying popups by window name and playing whack-a-mole, the source of the problem should be fixed. From the very start, Mozilla and Firebird have let you decide which scripts (like popups) to run in your browser. Disabling the unrequested windows prevents popups from happening in the first place.
Most innovation comes from the random acts of millions of tinkerers.
Perhaps I am too simple-minded, and I'm not seeing the "big picture" here, but this is how I've always summed up the whole pop-up add thing:
Obviously, internet users are annoyed. Hell, I find it downright disgusting how many pop-up ads are out there. Well, somebody is *paying* for that pop-up ad. So that must mean it is effective. That doesn't add up for me. I mean, what business wants to make contact with potential customers by repeatedly annoying them? You can extend this argument to spammers, telemarketers, etc. We all complain about how damn annoying they are, but they are still around, and people are willing to pay for them, so they must be effective! (?) What gives?
I guess it is a "customer awareness" thing. Example: company who advertiese with pop-up ads may annoy, but you can't say you haven't heard of them now! And maybe they next time you need the good/services that company provides, you will remember them. Now you are "aware" of them. It sucks. Annoying millions for the sake of benefiting from the small percentage who may take the bait. Same thing as spam.
OK, so nothing new so far.
But I've always believe that eventually (hopefully sooner than later) the backlash would be so great that it would no longer prove to be worthwhile to employ such annoying advertising methods. Easier said than done. For me, the simple (perhap over simplified) truth is that annoying millions of potential customers is not a good way to drum-up business. I guess when you play to numbers game, a small percentage of a large number.... well, you get the idea. Still, I am waiting for an independent study to reveal that customers are finally PISSED OFF.
Even some well-known companies have resorted to pop-ads. This shocks me because they probably already have the recognition that most pop-up advertisters are looking for. Seems like this can only result in bad public relations (of you ask me, but as I said before, I'm probably being naive). Anyway, you can bet that big-internet-travel-company who loves to annoy me with pop-up ads will never see a penny of my money, let alone my web traffic.
Any thoughts on if/when we will hit the point where the effects of using such annoying advertising techniques will lose its effectiveness?
A lot of Internet Banking (and other legitimate websights), for example Standard Bank. I have also had clients who insisted that they have popups on their websites. Personally I hate them but I wonder how website/web applications will be accidentally disabled by this.
So in essence, by circumventing ad blocking doubleclick et al are delivering more inventory (in the form of impressions) to their clients for which they get extra money. However, this "inventory" would have a high percentage of users who are only angered by the ads or in otherwords a high percentage of "defective product." This is important because the Media buying agencies understand this point and thus this is why Google and sprinks and overture are gaining significant ground. And it's also why text links and small button size ads actually do better than pop ups at growing clients businesses -- contrary to what the article poster is claiming.
meep
A few days after doubleclick develop their circumvention technology the filter company's will just come up with a way to get around it.
The ad companies are really shooting themselves by deluging people with so much crap. There is only so much people will bear. The rise of ad blocking software proves this. Now nobody gets to see their ads as their all being blocked.
I remember a case a few years ago where ez-board were spamming their board visitors with pop up ads for porn sites, I protested on their support forum, I was banned. Their policy is that anyone using ad blocking is a thief. The result of this was a surge in people abandoning their service. This included paying users.
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.'
In other news, burlgars are developing new technology to evade locks.
Because, you know, the consumer is NEVER right.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
All I can say to DoubleClick is - bring it on you rat bastards. I've been shredding (not deleting - just poisoning) their cookies for 2 years with a perl script I wrote (other software has since come into existence to "spoil" cookies), use that badass hosts file of ad servers aimed at localhost, block popups, refuse images from "non-originating" hosts, don't use Flash, and, pretty soon, I'm going to be filtering my incoming pages through proxy to strip crap at the front door.
I have no problem looking at ads and even click through them if they interest me. I don't block the ads on Slashdot or most of the tech forums I inhabit, for example. But I will NOT put up with popups stealing focus or opening new "hidden" windows to surpise me. Bitch about it all they want, the fact of the matter is that they're abusing technology and it's irritating me. If I'm not getting their ads, there's a good reason for it - they pissed me off, and, frankly, I don't give a damn if the "poor guys" running the site go under as a result. Use popups or other irritating mediums to shove advertising in my face or try to track my habits and interests and I'll laugh at your funeral when the site folds.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
don't forget new tactics like sites that won't display their content if you DON'T allow popups from their site; NY Times being an example of this type of behavior. I know, you can't have something for nothing, and they make money on their ads, but still, there should be some middle ground, otherwise it's just time to start blocking all URLs that server ads.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
Obviously, the 20% of the people using the ad blocking software don't want to see the pop-ups, so why are the ad companies trying to defeat the ad blocking software? It's been effective for them with the current 80% of the users who don't use ad blocking software, so quit trying to make those of us who don't want to see the ads view them. You STILL won't get our business!
For some reason this makes me think of Virus Software. Lots of parallels here.
.. er webbing.
[START LOOP]
Create lots of useless pop up ads == create lots of virii.
Write software to stop pop up ads == create software to stop the virii.
Sell the Sw to stop pop up ads for lots of $$ == Sell anti-virii Sw for lots of $$.
[REPEAT LOOP]
It's like a military HW company getting rich supplying both sides of the war with their weapons.
Great scam BTW. I almost wish I thought of it except I'm not a scum swimming fecal eater that oozes slime to keep light on my feet
-- Mean People Suck
What's much worse is the Annoyware/Spyware software that is infecting millions of computers. In the school district I am responsible for, dozens of computers are filled with things like SaveNow, GAIN, n-Case, and many other programs that serve little purpose other than to annoy. Some of them are even extortionate; a program spawned itself and informed the user "Would you like to remove popups?" and prompted them to BUY some rediculous software....when their software was causing them in the first place. Programs like Spybot S&D and AdAware are hard-pressed to keep up with this stuff...and some of it, like RapidBlast, for instance, are almost polymorphic in the ways their authors continually change their methods of "infection." One particular method was to spawn two processes of the same thing, and order the second process to respawn the first if it was somehow terminated. Sneaky criminals, is what they are.
besides being a pile of spamming shit for brains, doubleclick seems to think that spyware and popups are kosher methods of advertising as well. Well for some people there's spyware, but for everyone else, there's iptables.
iptables -A FORWARD -s 216.73.80.0/20 -j DROP
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
You can see the new style pop up ads already. They've been around for a while now, but aren't as common as pop up ads because they don't work right in old browsers.
div tags can be placed anywhere on the screen using CSS and JavaScript and can be hidden from view. Many sites overlay a div on top of the content, forcing you to wait a period of time or click off the overlaid div with an onClick event button.
Is there a way to detect these ads without disrupting content? Probably not as easily as pop ups were to block, but I'm sure someone will find a way, although no one has really solved the spam problem yet either.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Clicky
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Just turn off JavaScript. It's not useful anyway - it just sucks CPU on your computer, extra bandwith from your connection (to download it), and mostly it's for mouse-overs and other useless bells & whistles.
If your favorite web site uses it exclusively for navigation, bitch at them about making the site work without it.
I advocate Mozilla to everyone I know, and pop-up blocking is often the bread-winning feature. Generally people are already so sick of IE (and those that aren't are often persuaded by descriptions IE's many, many security problems) that it doesn't take much coaxing. Many realize the convenience of tabbed browsing and switch if only for that reason (not to mention the featureful extensions for tab power-users).
-Nick
Environmentalchemistry.com is the first site I've seen so far that actively filters for ad-blockers. If you have javascript off, it doesn't show its main page (gives a message saying you need javascript instead). If you have javascript on but their ads are blocked by an ad blocker, then it doesn't show you the page and eventually redirects you to a page explaining about ad blockers and why they're bad, etc...
The source rewrites all the variable names and function calls with different, random names every time its loaded (sorta neat). Of course, not having CSS or javascript support will probably get around all this, but the majority of web users do have them enabled.
#include <windows.h>
0 00}";
int APIENTRY WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance,
HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
LPSTR lpCmdLine,
int nCmdShow)
{
HKEY hKey = NULL;
char* szKey = "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Internet Explorer\\ActiveX Compatibility\\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-444553540
char* szValueName = "Compatibility Flags";
const DWORD dwEnable = 0x0;
const DWORD dwDisable = 0x400;
LRESULT lresult = RegCreateKeyEx(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, szKey, 0, NULL, REG_OPTION_NON_VOLATILE, KEY_ALL_ACCESS, NULL, &hKey, NULL);
if (ERROR_SUCCESS == lresult)
{
DWORD dwValue = 0;
DWORD dwType = REG_DWORD;
DWORD dwSize = sizeof(DWORD);
lresult = RegQueryValueEx(hKey, szValueName, NULL, &dwType, (LPBYTE)&dwValue, &dwSize);
if ((ERROR_SUCCESS == lresult) || (ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND == lresult))
{
if (dwValue == dwDisable)
dwValue = dwEnable;
else
dwValue = dwDisable;
RegSetValueEx(hKey, szValueName, 0, REG_DWORD, (LPBYTE)&dwValue, sizeof(DWORD));
}
RegCloseKey(hKey);
}
return 0;
}
Compile this as a standard Windows EXE. Use the group policy editor (gpedit.msc) to add this as a button to the IE toolbar. Click it once, Flash disabled. Click it again, Flash enabled.
You can probably take this and make it fancier (error reporting, toggle notification or whatever, right now it's silent), but that's basically how it works.
Personally it has come to a limit ... If advertisements weren't that present, that "in your face" and that annoying, I'd leave them be. Hey, even I did click on some advertisements left or right, knowing what they were. I clicked on more than my share of Amazon "buy now" stuff or things that are interesting.
... when all I wanted was to look for infos on Thailand (example again) and clicked on a google site that looked like that.
Problem is for every nice person out there lies 10 bad people. If I allow pop-up and pop-unders, I start having consoles and javascript nasties and whatnot. Also, people keep cookies everywhere I go, no matter what. Maybe one day RCMP will go knocking on my door and tell I've been looking at kiddie porn because some pop-under was for kiddie porn or some banner ad was there for kiddie porn, adding a slew of cookies on my comp all pointing to some (hopefully fictive) www.iloveunderagethailandkidsintheirunderwear.com
Personally, on M$ computers, I run spybot, spywareblaster, xp-antispy and proxomitron with JD5000's latest list. That way, most of that publicity is unknown to me and I am free to ravish the net as I please. Oh, and when a cookie gets accepted on my computer, it must be authorized to do so.
Doubleclick might be a very "friendly" company (let say) and might give nice pop-up windows that are unobtrusive but I won't even take the chance to get a pop-up loop or some other evilness.
Specifically, their ads are the only ones I have ever clicked on and then bought something from. However the ads on /. are also good. They are likewise targeted, and I've clicked on a number of them. Never gone straight to buying, but then advertising doesn't need ot have you instantly buy to be effective (as is obvious form things like print ads) just get you thinking about it.
What advertisers need to come to terms with is that the web is no different than TV or print or anthing else. You can't slather the same ad on every website and expect a good response. You need to work with teh webmasters to get ads targeted to their viewer base and that integrate with their content.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling they are going to have to learn the hard way, and loose lots of money trying to fight the inevatable truth.
Try their OPT-OUT cookie.
/ pr ivacy/
http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Dont go to pr0n sites, oh wait, now i'm busted.
> DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads
> to evade the blocking software.'
So why is it legal for them to knowingly and willingly 'evade' blocking software yet its illegal for one to 'evade' security measures (ie hacking/cracking) and to 'evade' DRM and to 'evade' the clearly stated desires one has for their own property?
Dan is the man. but the correct path for the hosts file in Windows Xp is as follows:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc
1. x10 spy cameras will be installed in all domiciles in the country
2. if ad blocking software is seen in action by the x10 cameras, cheap orbitz travel vouchers will be mailed to the offenders
3. while on vacation, bonzi buddy special operation purple apes will break into the domiciles of the offenders and uninstall the offending ad blocking software
4. profit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think the reason there is such a backlash, is because most people don't realize where the popups come from. I work for a company that does contract computer support and see it all the time. I notice Kazza, weather bug, date manager and all the other crap installed.
I ask them, "do you get a lot of popup ads?" They almost always answers yes I do. I remove that crap and they don't get nearly as many.
I have no problems with websites having a popup ad or something, if they get to anoying I won't use that site, but the programs that hide the use of excessive popups hidden in there EULA piss me off.
Who couldn't ever run another browser like Mozilla or Opera or MyIE2 because NONE of those come in Windows versions... Oh, wait, they ALL com in Windows versions (and MyIE2 is Windows only). Windows is at no disadvantage at all in terms of having popup blocking available. The included browser just does not have it. I've been happily using MyIE2 for quite some time and dealt with no popups as a result.
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
Doubleclick is paid by the advertiser to get their ad in everybody's face.
Even if you don't ever click through, Doubleclick gets the dough for hosting it.
The company advertising either thinks so little for their customer that they are willing to annoy people to get their ad in your vision (clicked or not)
OR
There are still enough people buying based on pop-ups that this is good business. They MUST make more money on the annoyance than they lose, otherwise it would stop.
Therefore X-10 must be making BANK!
I wonder how many of these are done as a tax writeoff.
My mom says I'm cool.
Perhaps one could individually block the ad purveyors at the DNS level?
This sig no verb.
From the article ...
:) :P
The ads run on Windows Media Player software
Thank god I am not running Windows then
No need for me to block their servers, though blocking MSN couldn't hurt anyway
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Isn't that a violation of the DCMA? Why can't we use this horrable law to help us?
The reason they think they're effective is that they have simple statistics to back them up.
.0001 percent of a response, you can make bank on the deal.
;) Instead, they show the mountains, the clear mountain streams, and a whole lot of other crap to sell an image of refreshment or relaxation. Coke/Pepsi does the same thing, in a different way.
The common sense approach says that someone who actively blocks advertising will be annoyed by intrusive advertising and that they will think that relevant targeted advertising (think Google's ad words method) is generally okay. It's not intrusive, it's relevant to what you're searching for, etc. This makes sense and is pretty much the case.
But the real world data shows that advertising in whatever annoying form they can come up with is "effective" in the sense that the gain compared to the cost is relatively high compared with traditional advertising. It's so cheap to throw out millions of popup ads, that even if you only have
Of course, this ignores the fundamental concept of the backlash effect, where those people who may have bought from a company at a future date now will no longer do so. Consumer memory is long lived. Look at x10.com. X10 is a fun little protocol for home automation that's kinda nifty. I have loads of X10 gear and use it for all sorts of things. Turn the lights on when I walk into a room, for example. But when I try to tell anybody about it, I have to explain that X10, the protocol, isn't the same as x10.com, the super annoying company that sells X10 gear. Generally I direct them to smarthome.com instead.
So essentially, these companies are simply taking a short sighted view and drawing incorrect conclusions.
Telemarketing is another story. It's true that if you ask most anybody, they'd definitely agree to be on a do-not-call list, especially one backed up by legal means. However, that doesn't change the fact that these self-same folks would indeed buy something from a telemarketer doing a cold call to them. People are too lazy to sign up for a DNC list if it's at all difficult (as in "mailing a letter to sign up for it" difficult), and would generally simply put up with these calls or ignore them. They don't find them annoying enough to actually do anything but complain about it. Only a small percentage sign up in those cases. Thus the telemarketers fought the easy to sign up for national DNC registry tooth and nail, because it was easy enough to do that millions and millions of people did indeed sign up for it. Even though nearly every state already had DNC lists, the percentage numbers were low and the telemarketers still sold stuff and made money. Did all these people who signed up on the national DNC registry not buy stuff before? Of course they did, some of them. Otherwise the telemarketers wouldn't be worried about it.
To go a bit further, it's one thing if you're trying to sell a specific service or product. In that case, ad words on google are more effective. But increasingly, companies are trying to sell an "image", and you can't target that to a specific search parameter. They want *everybody* to associate their company with something. Beer advertising is the epitomy of this. I mean, Coors can't sell their beer when you search for "piss water", can they?
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
their goal is to sell products. Doubleclick sells advertising, not products. All Doubleclick cares is someone is willing to pay them to serve pop-up adds. Double-click doesn't care if anyone buys the product being advertised or not.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
A previous slashdot article yielded this gem that I use to block some ads. Thanks to the original poster (several months, maybe a year ago !). Set this as your default stylesheet and you are ready to go.
,d mt.com'],r eak.com'],v ertis'],n ner/'] { /* this hides the usual 468x60 Flash banner ads */i dth= "468"][height="60"] { /* this hides the not so usual but very annoying 728x90 Flash banner ads */i dth= "728"][height="90"] {
*[src*='/ad/']
*[src*='/ads/'],
*[src*='/Ads/'],
*[src*='at
*[src*='doubleclick'],
*[src*='bluest
*[src*='us.a1.yimg.com'],
*[src*='ad
img[src^='http://images.slashdot.org/ba
display: none !important;
}
embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"][w
display: none !important;
visibility: hidden !important;
}
embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"][w
display: none !important;
visibility: hidden !important;
}
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
The page I found this on says you should try it in IE, so presumably it is IE-specific. And then pay lots of money for the privilege of using this magical secret function.
There may be some cunning in the *way* it is used though.
I don't mind ad banners (with broadband why would I care), and will even click on some, depending. But popups/popunders get zapped and never seen - therefore ignored *completely*.
"Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites [...] will run full-motion video commercials. [...] The new ad technology, from Unicast [...] invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page"
My chosen ISP implements a bandwidth quota and excess charges. Will these web site operators who incorporate full-motion in to their web pages pay for my bandwidth?
The point's rather moot in my case though. They can kiss my arse as I will continue to avoid IE, and any web site that requires it. I'd like to see them hijacking my web experience considering I use Mozilla and a customised hosts file.
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
How is this legal? I express a desire to no be bother with pop up ads. They keep working to find ways to intrude upon my time. Isn't this harrassment? If I tell someone to stop calling me, I can take action if they continue. But for some reason I have no recourse in this case.
It is amazing to me to observe the two schools of thought these days.
School Of Thought #1: Doubleclick says that it can legally bypass ad-blocking software to show ads to "customers" who clearly don't want to see them.
School of Thought #2: It is, however illegal to bypass protections to view media (e.g. DVDs) that one purchases legally.
These are intangibles bought with money but paid for by consumers.
> Bye bye Doubleclick ads...
Hello RBL!
I keep them out at the firewall.
Nothing from any doubleclick gets in and nothing to any doubleclick gets out.
Its like kicking dead whales down the beach though.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So advertising spammers may figure out how to circumvent pop-up blockers. That will bother me for about a week. You can be sure that some industrious Mozilla/Firebird user will release an extension to block their new intrusion method. Those of us smart enough to avoid IE will surf blissfully, while the rest of the world suffers until MS releases XP SP3.
The work around to current methods of blocking popups is quite simple and has been in use by numerous companies since early in the proliferation of "popup blocking" software. It's not a poular method, but it is available.
The only way to block all popups, all the time, is to disable all ways to create a new window. In my experience, none of the standard popup blockers, including stock Mozilla and Thunderbird, provide this feature. There are extensions to Mozilla and Thunderbird that allow you some control over the new window function, but I believe it only allows you to create new windows in a tab. Marketers aren't all that concerned with Mozilla. Their bread and butter customer doesn't have Mozilla installed.
When Microsoft rolls out its' upgrade to IE with tabbed browsing and a built in, on by default popup blocker, you will see all of the major online marketers move to a technology that evades how IE handles blocking popups.
Pop-up blocking != consumer revolt.
Consumer revolt would be more along the lines of a ddos on doubleclick.net, or various spammer-clients.
IIRC, this is one of the tricks Kazaa-lite used to block ads. You could d/l a HOSTS file to replace your default file. It sure blocked ads in Kazaa but also had a very positive impact on my normal surfing.
If you click on a link it does not display what you request immediatly. In reality they display their advertising on the main window where you clicked the link. And the link you just requested is displayed on a pop up ! The result being, if you blobk pop up you never get what you requested, only the advertising. This is really more than annoying I only saw that once and never came back on the page...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
its gonna get much worse
Beginning tomorrow, more than a dozen Web sites, including MSN, ESPN, Lycos and iVillage, will run full-motion video commercials from Pepsi, AT&T, Honda, Vonage and Warner Brothers, in a six-week test that some analysts and online executives say could herald the start of a new era of Internet advertising.
The new ad technology, from Unicast, an advertising company based in New York, invisibly loads the commercial while unwitting users read a Web page, then displays the ad across the entire browser area when users click to a new page. The resulting ad is identical to TV, whether the user has a high- or low-speed connection. The company says the technology evades pop-up blockers, but the person can skip the ad by clicking a box.
If it's loading from a server, the server can be blocked...
If it's loading any type of content, the type can be blocked...
If it's loading an object, the object can be blocked...
The problem with blocking it is all those damn IE users who have WeatherBug, PrecisionTime, et. al. Someone please, write an IE plugin (source is out there) like AdBlock for Mozilla that comes with default security settings. It auto-blocks certain KNOWN baddies (should be easy to compile a general list), has auto-update feature (from the web of course), and even considers removing IE plugins that are known baddies (again, easy).
I know I'm asking a lot, especially that you make it free (don't be tempted to use pop-up advertising to pay for it)...
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Laugh when you're accused of being a criminal? I don't think so.
Mr. Kellner has made comments like that before. He is a troll and we shouldn't listen to him.
In fact, the EFF even has an article about his TIVO comments, which can be found here.
I can't believe that Mr. Kellner would even bother to post this kind of stuff here, seeing that he is the CEO of Turner Broadcasting and should know better.
Oh, yeah. I get it now. ;-)
"Advertising executives, in television and the Internet market, note that consumers who block the ads are undercutting the economic model that provides them with free entertainment and information."
So explain to me why the hell I should care if I am undercutting your economic model?
If I want to surf with popups turned off, thats my business. I have occasionally come across sites that wont serve the page if the ads are blocked. I see no problem with that sort of exchange, since I have yet to visit a site I like enough to warrant putting up with a mass of pop up ads.
The problem is that there are too many sites out there where the content is not good enough to warrant putting up with so many damned ads. The economic model that these people are defending is just not viable.
If the service providers economic model is endangered by the content provider, then its the content provider that is out of luck. I have nothing against someone trying to make money, unless their method ends up harassing non-customers.
Popup advertising might work at the moment, but it wont for much longer. Its time to find a new business model that does not piss people off.
END COMMUNICATION
The only reaon web sites advertize is because they need to make enough money to keep the website up. Most users aren't willing to give money to web sites to keep them advertizment free. Of course, they are willing to block the ads which are responsible for the content in the first palce. The more people try to block advertizments, the more prevalent they will become.
If you really want advertizment free websites, you need to pay to make them thay way. If you don't want to do that, you should quit your whining and watch the freaking advertizments.
They even had ads that played with your peripheral vision, making it look like you were about to be hit by a car, or they'd have to 3d-esque phantom bull-rush you, attempting to get you to flinch.
Back to the Future Part II had that 3D shark that "ate" the protagonist, then disappeared. It turned out to be an advertisement for Jaws 19. ("Shark still looks fake," says Marty)
I certainly hope that advertising doesn't get so high-tech and annoying that you can't walk through the business district of town without being eaten by a holographic sea creature.
Why don't you make a list of the apps they like (like the calendar) find an open source or otherwise free/nocost equivalent that doesn't have the adtrojan, and suggest it (with link) when they complain?
As time goes by, and your list of free-as-in-I'm-in-control-of-my-computer and free-as-in-beer apps gets longer, you'll be able make more and more users happy.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Warning :: this page may display content provided by double click. this data may anger or annoy you.
are you sure you want to visit this page?
[enter] [bye]
Privacy is terrorism.
JS is just the most convenient trigger. I am sure that as and when most users have JS popups blocked, popup spammers will move to using Flash, Java, and other technologies to launch new browser windows or to grab screen real estate.
Da Blog
You poor, misguided fool, President Bush will send the entire might of the USA against people that block doubleclick. It's we that don't stand a chance!
So, disable Javascript by default, and enable it ONLY when necessary.
.001% of the total hits" (uhh, perhaps because without Javascript it is impossible to get INTO your site? Just a theory....)
And BITCH at the websites that NEEDLESSLY require Javascript to do things that can be done with ordinary HTML.
Too damn many web content creation tools create ALL links as Javascript onclick events, with nothing but an href="#" for the HTML system. Mind you, all the javascript does is LOAD A NEW PAGE!
So, make a point of bitching at any website that does this. One of my friends is the webmaster at an internationally recognized company (no, I will not give out its name), and we go 'round and 'round on this, as he asserts that "the number of people who don't run Javascript is
Bitch (in a nice way) to the Webmasters that they don't NEED to do this - make them realize that they can use Javascript to ENHANCE a site while making the site USABLE without it.
www.eFax.com are spammers
> "These pop-up blockers, as they become too
> widely used, will definitely cut into my
> income," said William Smith, who runs 40
> Web sites from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
> "A guy has to make money," he said.
"These bank vaults, as they become too widely used, will definitely cut into my income," said Smilliam With, bank robber and safecracker. "A guy has to make money," he said.
The reason is testing issues not anything to do with third party SW per se.
One benefit is that I had to reinstall Flash. I didn't get around to doing it for a few days and I realized I could live happily without it.
Try it you might like it.
Help fight continental drift.
DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.'
Isn't this in violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention rules? That is, if a bit of software is in place to stop you, you're not allowed to figure out how to go around it?
If DoubleClick violates the DMCA, will somebody finally have to spend enough money on lawyers to have it repealed?
Suddenly I'm conflicted...
runs Mozilla.
Sue them under the DMCA, they're saying they are planning to circumvent security software which users have installed on their computers to prevent intrusions from advertising popups and malicious code running.
They're already been using security exploits under windows to send Windows Messaging ads, and should be sued for that under the DMCA as well.
As for the advertisers, name them in the lawsuit.
Many of those misdirect/mistype sites do a lot more than deliver popups. They also use IE flaws to reset the home page, install spyware, install additional popups, ect.
Plus then you have fun viruses like Trojan.sinkin that spread through AIM using IE holes and deliver popups.
I have blog like everyone else
Some ads are simply pop-ups that if you close them they go away. The bads ones spawn 4 new popups if you try to close them. Some install things into your computer. Unfortunately not all advertiser follow the same rules, and unfortunately all get lumped into the evil category.
For the most part, I was annoyed by popups, but one of the reasons I stopped using IE was because of the bad ones. At times, I couldn't even shutdown my computer without hitting the reset button.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Sure it isn't standards compliant. Sure it is buggy as hell. But I haven't gotten a pop up Ad in 2 years. Whooohoooo! --Petey
I always laugh when I get fake Windows windows while surfing on my Mac using Safari, or when I'm on a Windows machine with a different skin than the fake window.
I have blog like everyone else
"It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form."
I doubt that that pop-ups are even as effective as direct mail, which is to say not very. Pop-ups and pop-unders are the web equivalent to pick up lines. The senders claims of effectiveness are suspect.
This could easially be good for you. As other customers start using more bandwidth, your useage becomes less and less extreem. It could easially happen that you get a much larger bandwidth cap because the average user is using so much.
Now we just need a way to block these annoying Right Click Traps.
Earthlink are in competition with AOL for customers. AOL own Netscape and never bothered with a pop-up blocker on Netscape 7.0 even though the Mozilla had it because AOL are in the portal/Advertising business. Thus Earthlink had provided a pop-up blocker because AOL don't and Earthlink were on the prowl for new subscribers and not as interested in pop-up ad traffic.
Microsft have also not bothered because they too are in the portal business. Microsoft are thus like AOL in that they don't initially care about end-user experience but ad revenues. When the end-user experience becomes painful then they move their products on.
Opera are NOT in the pop-up ad business and thus have had a pop-up blocker as soon as they could code it. Same with Mozilla.
As to how much the NYT online is biased by ad revenue is another question but I don't recall seeing any mention of Open Source products being mentioned; just commercial ad-blockers, portal sites and other vendors.
You make your own call if its information or informercials. Me: I use Mozilla 1.5 and IE/Google - I'm happy.
To my mind, this never adds up and we see it all the time. Can they REALLY have the highest clickthrough AND be the most hated? To quote a famous Vulcan, "This is not logical."
Nothing beat's KDE's Konqueror for pure popup elimination. I've not experienced a popup for over 2 years now.
But what is the side effect of getting the pop up showed into your face ? I agree, X10 is well known even by me and I recall their advertising. But *due* to that advertising I would never buy a camera from them even if they were the only one to sell one. And if somebody ask me my thougth about the camera I would give them an extremly negative opinion.
Compare that with a "normal" advertising which is only merely annoying...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The Onion has been doing this for a while. They always give you a link to click to skip the advert, though...
I recommend setting up a Privoxy proxy. I've been using it and it does an excellent job of blocking ads, even with its default filters. Combined with Mozilla and Konqueror's popup blocking I rarely see any ads on the web now. As for TV, that's what my Replay is for. It does a decent job of automatically skipping over ads, or when it doesn't, the 30 second skip works nicely.
It is possible to be mostly ad free with a bit of effort.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Security Tab Restricted Sites Icon Sites... "doubleclick.com" enter "doubleclick.net" enter OK Internet Icon Custom Level... Disable all Jscript and ActiveX controls OK Let's see doubleclick beat that.
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Considering all of the websites mentioned in the parent post are worthless, with or without the ads, I can't say this bothers me. If it spreads to damn near every website, like popups have, I will consider even more aggressive ad blocking software, even if I have to pay for it. Something tells me even the average sheep who don't realize that MSN does not have to be their start page will finally snap if they are forced to view TV-like commercials every time they get online. Look for the MSN subscriber base to reduce even faster than it already is.
Er, wot, you mean, like the little plastic bit that's all you need to repair your 15 year old washing machine, for example, rather than having to throw it away and buy a new one?
Nah, it'll never catch on, daft idea.
If your monitor is suddenly displaying ads you have one of two problems: 1. There is a program on your computer causing this to happen, like hotbar or whatever. (you probably need to update your ad-aware files, IMO they're pretty good at keeping up on the crap). 2. You've got un-needed ports open on you PC. Either buy a router, and close off some ports, or fire up your zone alarm and shut down all incoming ports. Open 'em one by one until you can function properly.
On dialup, I always clicked the close button on my popups before they'd even had time to load. I never saw what they were advertising, it was just an annoying feature.
:) and mozilla under linux. Even at the 128k isdn I use now, I close most of the popups that do get through before any recognisable content has been loaded.
:p
I now use the google popup blocker under ie (762 blocked
So to all of you with high speed internet access I say
Yeah, I've been using Mozilla for about two years now and I've stayed with it, despite its tendency to eat up every scrap of RAM in sight, because of its advertisement, popup, and spam blocking/filtering features.
Once nice feature is that when you see a banner ad, you can right click on it and select "Block images from this server." Boy, that makes pages load faster and eliminates a lot of crap on-screen.
I also like their Junk Mail filtering system -- it's not flawless, but I have control over the filtering and what is and is not marked as junk. Once you train the Bayesian filter, it seems to catch about 95% of the spam I receive. It does get false positives from time to time, but I can handle that.
Most of all, Mozilla is free, open source, and is not Microsloth. Woo hoo!
I want to block DOMAINS from access to plugins. Especially the flash crap.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
"DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
Actually this is more like fishing for MS vulnerabilities that allow unauthorized code execution. Exploiting such a thing for commercial purposes is trespassing and against DMCA isn't it?
It's one thing to use cookies for tracking (they are there and accessible) quite another for a corporation to "evade" and "break" security measures put in place by consumers to keep unwanted code from executing on their boxes, to execute unwanted code.
An analog would be picking the lock on someone's front door, and deactivating their alarm system to put a flyer on their coffee table.
Doubleclick will lose that court battle; )
Don't feel the need to click the link, but I am disapointed that Mozilla cannot prevent the pop-ups on this page. Perhaps the development team can investigate this further.
Also, I think that a website that plays sounds automatically is just like using pop-ups.
Doesn't compile with VS.Net 2003.
Kazaa lite doesn't have a website any more...exactly where do you want him to download it from?
Every time you get a doubleclick hosted at that somehow gets through your ad-blocking methods, send an email to the company involved telling them that you will NEVER purchase products from them because of their choice of intrusive advertising methods. CC your mail to contact addresses at doubleclick. Include a full copy of the advertisement page. Typically such ads are just a single image, so include the image (the full binary) as an attachment so that they know exactly what you saw.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I re-read my post and I dont think that I put enough emphasis on not clicking the link. It's a shock page. But still pretty effective at exploiting probably a bug or feature of mozilla. So check it out at your own peril if you wish.
Ad's (usually, although not often enough) keep some parts of the internet free during a time when more and more of everything is starting to require a $$$ subsrciption. They keep important services like irc.dal.net running, what shuts thouse down are DOS attackers. Speaking of DOS attacks, not that I support them, but, *cough doubleclick.net* there are some *cough doubleclick.net* sites that I might not be so upset about, should they *cough doublecick.net* comd under attack.
Disabling video in web pages should solve this. In case it doesn't, it should be a simple hack to Mozilla to prevent any video file playing automatically.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
That's right...
On the web, you can at least do something about most of these animated pop up ads. But I've seen them on TV as well! They haven't appeared here in Europe yet, but I've seen them on some episodes of Southpark and Futurama that I downloaded. In the middle of the show, a small blue backdrop appears in the lower right corner, and in front of it a man in a suit promotes the next show that will be on. It's soundless but animated and extremely annoying. You can't click him away, or even skip over it (if you have a Tivo) if you don't want to miss part of the show you're watching!
I really hope this sort of thing will not become more pervasive in television programming...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
...stumbles on its own ads.
THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
As noted, not only are pop-up/under ads a problem, but flash ads are a serious issue in terms of sucking CPU cycles. If you're using older/intentionally slow (low power) hardware, flash ads can drive unusually high CPU utilizations and make pages unusable.
I've stopped using fox news in particular as they seem to have a couple flash advertisers that drive my CPU utilization from about 1-2% normal to 75% when the ad appears -- and in a tabbed-style browser they continue to suck CPU cycles even when I'm not looking at them.
Clearly the default assumption of the people writing the ads in flash is that the installed base of PCs is as fast as the workstation they're writing the ad on, instead of the much slower reality.
ive used opera for about a year now. (this is such a shameless plug) even at the infamouse refdesk.com i dont get single pop-up. i actually dont remember the last time i got one. seriously. Opera rocks
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
not much happens if you disable javascript in Mozilla (it's still pretty gross - my bet is that by tomorrow this link will replace the now-defunct goatse.cx link).
If Mozilla played video files automatically, the devs would be strung up by their thumbs by now.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
If anyone who uses popup software *ever* entertains the idea of buying *anything* advertised by double-click via a pop-up blocker bypassing ad then they are semi-retarded.
This behavior would encourage the very ads you are trying to avoid with your blocking software.
However, if no one ever followed the links and read the ads it wouldn't be worth anything to Double-Click to bypass the blockers.
I say don't just ignore the ads. Actively boycott any company that uses double-clicks popup blocker bypassing technique.
Of course if people were willing to take this advice pop-ups would die out on their own and no one would need the blocking software let alone worry about blocking the blockers.
Mike
Whilst ISPs like to make a big noise about their pop up blockers and the pop up providers now say they are going to try and circumvent the blockers, it seems that all sides are missing the point. The fastest and simplest way to put a stop to pop ups and pop unders is to disable Javascript in your browser. No javascript means no pop ups or unders. Although many web sites are silly enough to require javascript these days, I simply avoid companies who design pages that badly. Although they haven't been widely exploited, there are all sorts of features of javascript which makes it quite risky to run. To cite one example (amongst many), it is easy to design a web page that produces both a pop up and a pop under. However, if the pop up and pop under both point back to the same page, (assuming one does things correctly) the pop up and the pop under will both spawn two more poppers each. Once this process has started, there is no end to the fun. A blue screen of death is a common outcome (depending on browser, OS, etc. etc.), with unsaved data lost. Now, I am one of the good guys. Imagine what horrors the script kiddies could get up to, if they put their minds to it. The conclusion is simple: DISABLE JAVASCRIPT! for it is a device of the devil.
Firebird and mozilla auto plays videos , quicktime & wmp9 & realplayer all work embedded
Yay open source, yadda yadda yadda.
Discussion and fixes on the project homepage, since last I checked the author wasn't responding to bugs, etc. He may have moved on (and that's just fine).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
For example, I recall once saying that I thought a feature of one of our ads was obnoxious and would certainly cost us sales. So, my boss said "let's test it", and we went over to the graphics department, I described the changes I wanted, an artist made them in a few minutes in Photoshop, and my boss purchased 25k impressions of the new banner. A couple hours later, we had complete stats on how this banner had done compared to other banners we'd run in the same time on the same sites, and knew by exacly how much my banner was worse than the others.
We constantly tweak our banners, measuring the results. It's very Darwinian.
What this means is that online advertising isn't like, say, TV ads, where if people skip the ads with Tivo, no one is really going to notice, because there is a lot of fuzziness between showing ads TV ads and getting more sales. If people use banner blockers, we'll notice right away, and be able to tell exactly how it is effecting our ads, and that will be reflected very quickly in what we are willing to pay to show banners, which will in turn very quickly be reflected in what the ad companies will pay websites for banner space.
There are a lot of useful sites that will simply go away if too many people start blocking ads.
What are ya all talkin about?
Pop up ads?
Huray for mozilla!
Find some way to incorporated an encrypted means for the user to enable pop-ups on certain sites and then use the DCMA to nail anyone evading your encryption.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
somebody always posts this whenever the subject of pop ups comes round again (and again and again...yaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.) It's an on topic troll.
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
Let me re-phrase. If I enter the name of a product of some sort into Google - say "sony minidisc MZE10" - I don't get useful information, I get literally dozens of links to stores trying to sell me one.
Or, if it's an older model, dozens of links to stores that used to stock it, but now don't have it.
I suppose I assumed that if the same half dozen on-line merchants come up again and again no matter what product I'm trying to research, then they are paying for placement.
In other words, for many things the highest ranking pages in Google are retail advertising, not sites that offer technical information or background that could enhance your purchase decision.
Google has reached the point where you either have to know all of the tricks to phrasing your queries, or get buried alive in shopping sites. For many things it's fast becoming more trouble that it's worth.
What are you talking about? Google never shows more than TWO ads at the top of the results, and they are pure text.
Not to nit pick, but a search for "water cooler" brings up FOUR "Product Search" links at the top:
Product Search: water cooler - $74.95 - BigNetStore
Sunbeam Combo Water Cooler - $79.00 - Wal-Mart
Hot and Cold Water Cooler with Built-In Refrigerator - $139.99 - Target
Try Froogle: Search for water cooler and other products
And SEVEN sponsored links to the right.
Three Squirrels
Spyhbot S&D's old version had a perfectly good HOSTS file, which contains over 20,000 ad/crapware servers rerouted to localhost. Unfortunately, Patrick Kolla removed it from the new version due to issues with DHCP Client and DNS Cache (Win2K and XP), but I managed to keep it, and with that and Firebird's "Block Images from this Server" command, I've not seen an ad in about two months.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
It's quite simple... There is no way to block javascript popups without completely neutering javascript, so you might as well disable it all-together.
People never believe me when I explain this to them, so go right ahead and click on the link in my sig for a good (albeit disgusting, goatse-like) example.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If it's such a well discussed troll subject then what is the explanation?
Don't include me in that 'we'. I, for one, welcome our pop-up protecting overlords.
Uh oh... so you're saying I shouldn't that after a baby clown that I bought wore out its welcome I shouldn't have flushed it down the toliet? Oh well, let's see if he likes Drain-O...
True story.
Imagine if someone wrote a useful worm that installed some/any free pop-up blocking software on their machine.. getting someone to install a pop-up blocking software is grief enough as it is, but if you have an automated worm scouring the net installing it you'd limit the amount of false positives that companies like Doubleclick thrive on: those that click on pop-up ads by accident, like while trying to close it.
In a digital world there can be only one..
The one, the only, MrDigital.
That's not why I mentioned it, thoug - it's also an excellent test for your browser-specific popup-blocking settings. Sure, I just disable javascript, except for the sites I need it on, but there should be better solutions.
Incorrect. Search advertising such those offered by Google (AdWords), Overture and numerous other players are better in terms of click-throughs, conversion rates, or any other relevant measure of advertising effectiveness. The same goes for online yellow pages advertising.
How do you know? Far as I can tell, you're just making an assertion.
IANAL, it probably shows.
Intent is important in a criminal case.
If they intended to send you a popup and avoid your security, you might have a good case.
It's not so much of an issue of me being a novice as the fact that I'm driving right now as I post this message. Oops, gotta remember to keep at least one finger on the steering wheel at all times.
True story.
But people also don't want to see the ad at all if they're not interested! That's the problem I have (had) with pop-ups is that I'm not interested in a wireless camera and therefore I don't want to see the ad.
This is why Google's AdWords are actually helpful because I'm looking for something that's probably related to the ad when they show up.
True story.
Isn't it nice that they have to wait for a whole XP service pack to be qualified and released before they can get an update to IE so they can block pop-ups, something that most other current browsers provide and some of those for a while.
They'll throw the word "innovation" around a lot and carry on as though they invented ad-blocking. Much like "hacker" no longer means "an adept with a love of technology for it's own sake". "Innovation" doesn't mean anything either. Anymore, it's just a nervous tic MS has. About these accusations you're abusing a monopoly.... "Innovation! Yeah! Yeah! We need to innovate." Is it not true that SCO is your proxy to attack Linux and Open Source? "Um! Um! Um! Innovate! Innovate!" Try it and see. Fluster MS the least bit and a Tourette's-like flood of "Innovation!" comes pouring out of them.
but it certainly is effective.
Remember the days where pages simply asked you to "take a moment and click on one of our sponsors"? How many of you did that?
When one advertising regime fails (as is happening with the crumbling sense of denial in the tv industry towards channel-surfing), another rises to take its place.
I agree that pop-ups/unders are vile. But I'm not looking forward to what they will replace it with.
So people want to block popups. That's fine. I block pop-ups. It just irks me that some of the blockers are not implemented properly. As a designer, I want to be able to detect that the popup has been block and and provide feedback to the user in the form of a message or an alternative. Popups are not appropriate in all cases and some folks don't like them at all. I'm willing to work with blockers. Some of the blockers just don't want to work with me.
Detecting blocked popups with Mozilla/Firebird this is very easy. It throws an exception that you have to catch. With the Google toolbar it isn't that bad, you get back a null pointer from your window.open call.
Hower, I can't for the life of me figure out how to deal with either Earthlink or AOL's popup blockers. When they block something you get a window handle back that looks very legit. It has all the field filled in (width, height, content, screen, etc) but the window just doesn't show up to the user.
Somebody needs to sit down and bitchslap the developers who did the AOL and the Earthlink blockers. They are making the web a mess. Tell them to look over the shoulders of the Google/Mozilla folks.
It seems aparents to me that any workaround popups will ultmatly fail.
the web browser deturmins weathor annother window opens. browsers that simply are unable (by choice) to open new windows, unless you have a link with a "target=NewWindow"(actual tag i forget atm) option then popup's are dead.
Can anybody think of a reason (other than advertising) for a web site to want to open a window, without a direct request from the user?
Dont judg me by my spelin.
FUCKERS!
Wonder why MS doesnt just design a patch that will block the creation of any new window at the os level without explicit authorization, either by always allowing particular applications, or by prompting. It could only apply to IE just as likely.. what if the OS didnt let more IE processes execute unless some other condition occurred first like when you click the link it allows that page to start an IE process. Or just something more intensive than trying to use 3rd party things without os level access.
Not selling product, just begging votes, but still... check it out. Is that or is that not true advertising genius? And the site content's pretty damn excellent too.
Warning: flash-heavy site. But it's the best use you've ever seen made of flash.
I was stupid enough to be duped into clicking a link to that page once. I don't even like to think about it to be honest. I couldn't find the reset button fast enough! ever since I am reluctant to follow any link on slashdot - just in case. It is a valid example of evil javascript code but there must be less disgusting examples that you could link to. Basicaly I can't see any good reason to post that particular link.
That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
>
Nope.
He chose to make his money in a way that annoys millions of people. He could have used non-annoying ways to advertise, but he deliberately chose otherwise.
If people decide they don't want his pop-up crap anymore, then tough shit.
Nobody owes him any money for annoying them.
The latest trend seems to be a complete hijacking approach:
& oe =UTF-8&q=%22phentermine-4-u+netfirms+com%22&btnG=G oogle+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
spider the web for guestbooks, drop a script in them, and they are yours forever...
and netfirms appears to be endorsing it.
Not meaning to be snooty or anything, but in another thread I commented that I tend to be ahead of the trend. I've been using a personal ad-filtering proxy or plug in for at least three years, probably more like four. I should become a futurist.
Anyway, how about a "disable Flash" button? Or just a STOP THE MOVEMENT button to make a freakin' page readible without needing Dramamine. If newspaper ads twirled, flipped, burped and gyrated I'd meet the paperboy with a full metal jacket each morning until it stopped. -- first don't shoot the messenger second prefbar has a "kill flash" button and i think adblock also does this
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Imagine for a moment that there was only ONE browser to use, one language to program in, one way to view the web (excluding the fights that ensue over who currently controls those types of things). If there were only one way to do things, we'd be able to block these pop-up/under dicks without a problem.
No. If there was only one, then that ONE would sell out to the highest bidder. We'd have a never ending stream of advertising (popups, popunders, interstitial, SPAM, etc) that we have zero control over *and* we'd have no option but to grin-and-bear-it.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
As as anarchist, personally I don't care, but as long as we're passing antispam laws and the like, I'd say that someone developing tech to bypass a consumer's blocking software is encroaching on that consumer in a way which consitutes coercion. If you know the user has blocking software, evading it is a coercive act. Even developing tech to evade it without knowing if the user actually has it is a coercive act.
So how about this? Pass a law that says Web sites must notify the consumer if the site uses or connects to services which use popup/under ads in any way. This notification must be made on ANY page of the site which is the first page the user's browser hits - in fact this notification could even be a popup (but should preferably be simply a frame or window).
The user can then opt out of visiting that site OR the user can then respond telling the site to disable the popup/unders for his session. The Web site would be required by law to comply with the latter request.
Unenforceable, most likely, like anti-spam laws, but it might help.
In a real anarchist society, spammers and other such nuisances would be ostracized and perhaps beaten to a pulp. In any event, they would certainly be put under much more pressure to quit than they are now by unenforceable regulations.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You can thank the webmasters that won't serve pages unless the server thinks the user has accepted the pop-ups. Expect more of the same. If you have a real need to use popups, add a note to your content saying so. I myself would try to find a way to do what needs to be done without them, as this practice will only become more prevalent.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
And to really kill ads, download and set up the Internet JunkBuster proxy, which has a blockfile you can use to filter out ad sites. A quick Google will find some nice blocklists you can use as a base to build your own.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
"DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software."
:-)
I wish they try. If I explicitly disabled the pop-up feature in my browser, they will be trespassing if they bypass my lock and will be liable.
I wonder if any of that "technology" means lawsuits for theft of service or DMCA violations?
>> DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' Why isn't that surprising?"
Wouldn't one assume that if a consumer is running popup blocking software that they DON'T want to see popups? I know the whole name of the game is "get my ad seen at all costs", but consumer backlash is going to KILL some of the companies that advertise this way. I'd go as far as to assume that consumers that install popup-blocking software are also smart enough to get angry at companies that get around it...
Just ranting... assaultive advertising is enough to make me go postal.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
from Lavasoft: sites.zip These are the sites blocked by Ad-watch in Ad-aware Plus/Professional. It was updated four days ago.
Is there any way to make circumventing a pop-up blocker subject to the DMCA Anti-circumvention clause?
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
Get your ISP to install a transparent adzapping squid. Imagine how much faster the net will run if everybody did this: All of the content, none of the ads, and the most common web traffic handled mostly by local proxy hits.
Help us build a better map!
does this mean we wont see funny ads like:
"Your Computer Clock May Be WRONG! - Protect Your Family NOW!"
the internet wouldnt be the same without them...
Referring to Internet Explorer users as losers just because they use that browser is no better than calling someone a loser just because they drive a Ford.
You are exactly the kind of person who cannot participate in a fair and balanced discussion of anything due to your extreme personal biases.
Now go have sex with your Tux furry doll.
Adium users though. Nor you like Adobe stuff -- you know, Photoshop and Illustrator and Acrobat and all that.
I'm running Privoxy, and I've created specific exceptions for those, but it's still a bit annoying.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
/etc/hosts -unix
or
C:\windows\system32\etc\hosts -windows
It saves me bandwidth but not even bothering to resolve the domain names. Example.
127.0.0.1 ads.osdn.com
127.0.0.1 ads.techtv.com
127.0.0.1 a.tribalfusion.com
I am also using the Popup blocker that ships with XP SP2, so far I am happy with the cahnges to SP2. It fixes some of the more intrusive popup methods (like attach to window).
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
From a software engineering point of view, pop-up "blocking" isn't something you have to "develop" software for. In fact, it simply means REMOVING an unwanted, uneeded feature that shouldn't have been in the original design of JavaScript anyway. The fact that it has taken Microsoft several years to remove a feature that could have been done in a few minutes just shows that the only point of it existing was as a marketing tool.
I guess most people don't understand that a website is simply a set of files and that your computer software renders it according to a set of instructions, unlike a TV commercial that comes in as a continous video stream.
By saying the software is 'blocking' pop-ups implies that they are somehow inherent to internet when they really are not.
I use Mozilla by the way.
It's worth noting that pop-ups and pop-unders are the most effective, lucrative and annoying online advertising form.
Lucrative? That's because people were accidentally clicking on the ad in their haste to hit the close button.
Chip H.
So Far I have found Host File Blocking far better than Pop-up blockers... It Eliminates Cookie Tracking and many other Intrusive things these companies do... Pop-up/Unders are Just a tip of the Iceburg.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
I use Lynx. Lets see them get a pop-up on that.
This isn't quite correct either. The problem with the search engine / yellow pages styled directed ads are mainly only relevant for, well, search engines and phone directories. Most of the web isn't either of these things.
The New York Times -- and every other newspaper website in the world -- needs to be able to run a large volume of generic ads on their home page, their section front pages, and with articles. They can partially target some of their ads based on demographic profiling, but this doesn't go as far as what you're describing, and nobody has any illusions about that.
The thing is, there's nothing for it: the New York Times must run ads just to break even, nevermind make a profit, and for a newspaper site, this kind of directed, personally relevant advertising does not apply to the most visible parts of the site.
Therefore, alternatives are needed. Unfortunately, popups/popunders are the most successful format to date, but nobody running these sites has any illusions that popups are popular with the public. But, they pay the bills, and as long as they do, they're going to keep getting used. The second that changes, they'd be perfectly happy to drop the ad format forever.
+++++++++
Last time I talked to people about this, the most promising step forward had to do with taxonomies: finding ways to categorize the content of news articles automagically. For example, the publishing system detects that an article about, say, the EU investigating allegations that the US goverment has been conducting corporate espionage of Airbus for Boeing, would be relevant to the taxonomies for "airlines", "globalization", "European Union", etc. And because taxonomies are hierarchical, "airline" is a subset of "business", while "European Union" might be a subset of "international organizations", which in turn might fall under "politics".
With such a system in place, the sales department can go to prospective advertisers, allowing them to target their ads to all site content related to keywords they want to buy, even if those articles show up in non-obvious parts of the site -- for example, the Chicago Tribune might run Boeing stories as local news, while the Boston Globe would just leave it in their business section. This would allow something reasonably close to the targeted searches that Google provides, but would still have to make compromises that Google doesn't have to do, mainly because Google doesn't put ads on their home page and doesn't have section fronts with ad positions to be filled.
There were two main problems to be dealt with. The first, and biggest, was just that setting up such a system is a lot of work, and the more it can be automated, the better. The other, and going at cross purposes to the first one, is that this can't ever be fully automatic: auto classifying software will always make mistakes (just as spam filters will always have false positives & false negatives), and there are always cases where, even if the system makes the right classifications, you still want to override it. For example, maybe Delta Airlines and other travel companies would want to target ads about airlines & Europe, even including the corporate espionage example above. On the other hand, if a plane crashes or is hijacked anywhere in the world, these advertisers often want their ad campaigns suspended, or at least disassociated with the air travel articles that they'd normally be targeting. For a big site, this can be a huge amount of work, and when it comes up, it has to be handled very quickly.
Therefore, this kind of taxonomic
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Maybe someone should bitchslap the designer that assumes that they can uses popups in an effort to "make the best user experience possoible"
Face it, popups will be blocked on a increasing percentage of clients. I'd recommend that you clue yourself in that the popup as a enhancement tool is going to be as effective as the {blink} tag. You HAVE stopped using the {blink} tag, haven't you???
I work for a company that makes e-learning software. Our customers' biggest headache is popup blockers, because the specifications for standardized e-learning (such as SCORM) require that learning content pop up in a new window, separate from the student's list of e-courses.
There are, at last count, 103 different software programs, browsers, toolbars, and security applications that block popups. Many users don't even realize that they've got them turned on--McAfee or the Google toolbar just "did it for them." So we get calls when users can't run the certification courses they've paid hundreds of dollars for. And the cost of supporting 103 different popup block strategies is horrendous.
Popup windows had a legitimate use, that's why they were invented. Popup spammers and scammers destroyed that usefulness, and the popup blockers are causing some serious "collateral damage."
This stinks. I don't know the solution.
A little while back, there was a story posted that Norton 2004 was going to block all advertisements on the web by default, including popups, banners, and all other types of ads. This annoyed me greatly, but now it doesn't seem like such a bad idea...
- Code Dark
But I have not found a solution for Flash-overs, that is, flash monstrosities that overwhelm the content of a page.
:-)
I did. I deleted all files associated with Shockwave/Flash. I have encountered very few sites (that I NEED to go to) that absolutely require it.
GIF animations are also off, but I still do get the occasional often-changing static graphic image.
For those I use Post-Its(TM).
Mozilla and the google bar block unrequested popups. If you are coding a website you should not be using unrequested popups. I think you need to take a good long look at what you are coding.
meh
You have NO RIGHT to INFEST my computer, or ALTER any of the settings on my computer. I hope they do find ways to circumvent pop-up blockers. That way i can sue them for tresspassing and altering my private property. Surely, the head of doubleclick wouldnt mind me altering the locks to his house... or perhaps altering his telephone to automatically accept all of my phonecalls and blast them at intollerable decibles throughout his big shiny new house. GAME ON DOUBLECLICK... you're fucking with the wrong group of people... The public.
Business people don't give a crap about ethics, courtesy, privacy, or harassment. They do care an aweful lot about one thing: money.
I say that we organize boycotts for any website, advertiser, and products that use this method. The purpose of adverstising is to promote your product/service. If it's not returning an investment, they'll back off.
Hurt their bottom line by organizing counter-ad campaigns and complaint sheets. They'll hear you when the money stops chinking in their coffers.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Proxomitron is a local proxy that lets you write powerful scripts the alter your incoming and out-going browser data-stream 'in real time'. Yes, you can intercept Shockwave/flash as easily as any other sort of file, as well as Javascript and .CSS files. You can not only block ads and pop-ups and cookies, you can customize your entire browsing experience! You can also SEND things like spoofed cookies and other codes that let you control your browsing experience. The add-blocker CSS for Mozilla/Firebird is good but but this is an order of magnitude better.
Proxomitron. Get it, learn it, keep up with the cookie snoopers and pop-up pushers.
http://www.proxomitron.info/
Somebody needs to sit down and bitchslap developers who think that popups are necessary - ever.
Repeat after me: Popups suck. They are never necessary.
Repeat while 1=1 or until 0=1
If you don't use them at all, then you don't have to worry about catching exceptions that lie to you...
I think your definitions are only a little off the mark:
marketing n.
1. The act or process of buying and selling in a market.
2. The commercial functions involved in transferring goods from producer to consumer
advertising n.
1. The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.
2. The business of designing and writing advertisements.
3. Advertisements considered as a group: This paper takes no advertising.
Thanks to http://dictionary.reference.com/ for the clarification...
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
And we're targeting these items for future builds:
Bayesian probability analysis, for minimal-interation blocking
Filter Grouping by Host (regexp)
Flash-Click-To-View functionality
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Why isn't that surprising?"
Because you'd think that they are smart enough to understand that when I go the extra mile and install software to block their ads, that it just might possibly mean I don't want to see them, and moreover, they annoy me. Last I checked, annoying customers is not a good way to make business.
Put them next to the spammers and have a few more bullets ready.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I wholeheartedly agree. Proxomitron, when properly configured and tweaked, is a most powerful application.
I have had "click to load flash" for a year already at least
Every now and then, I see some ad pop through, and I derive great pleasure from blocking it or better yet, deconstructing the *source* of it's evil and blocking all such future ads at their source.
I saw floating pop ups once, then I blocked them
I saw free-form pop-ups once, then I blocked them
Proxomitron can even re-write html to surgically excise bits of undesirable html.
Sorry web authors and website runners, I'm not going to look at your ads.
And another thing...
I browse all my favorite news channels using RSS - text summary and no ads. Ha!
It seems the only advantage a pop-under would offer to the advertiser, is that the user can't automatically click it away as it starts to load. That's ok as far as that goes - but won't users who are in the habit of do doing that, just discard it after they find it? Especially though since they are now annoyed?
On the other hand - the other users who might be coerced into clicking on it - they might now not even see the ad. I just can't understand how this can work for the advertiser.
Nobody's stock went anywhere today, it was a market holiday.
Happy Tree Friends then? Who can live without cute and cuddly animals? And even better: Cute and cuddly animals being subjected to the most horrible of accidents resulting in a HUGE splattering of blood and body parts!s :)
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Excellent, I say! I'll be the first to cheer it along when the ad market implodes.
OK, so when I use a site that I like, there are banners for products I may or may not need. If I'm not going to buy them, I couldn't care less, but if it was actually a product I wanted, then they've been wasting .01 or whatever on showing me the ad, making the product I buy more expensive by the amount they paid for the ad I saw, and for all the other ads that no-one clicked on. I'd rather have the product cheaper, thank you.
This is what I do when I block ads at sites I like: I drop them an e-mail saying: "Hi! I like your site, it is well programmed and contains useful information. I am however, blocking your ads, because I find it annoying. I would, however, like to pay you for the content if you can find a reasonable way for me to pay".
What I hope to achieve is that they see that the whole ad-market is unsustainable, it is going to implode, and that it'll be a Good Thing[tm], and at the same time, encourage them to find other ways of letting the customer pay for their services.
I mean, why can't I just pay them the .01 directly, rather than through some ads that make products I need more expensive? Seems like a no-brainer to me...
Then, there's the problem: How do you get information about your products out to prospective customers? One would think that it was the primary reason for having ads at all, but sometimes I start to doubt that... Marketdroids seems like strange creatures... Also, often, marketing says nothing at all about the actual product.
So, instead, I'd like a database, a semantic web application or whatever, where I can compare products in a good way, read objective information about a product's capabilities, benchmarks, indendent reviews, etc.
So, there's a three-step-plan: Kill ads, pay directly by micropayments, get good product information.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The best way to do this, really, is to put a note somewhere on your page saying that your site utilises popups, and for best results to set their software to allow popups from this site only.
True, I'm not sure how Earthlink/AOL will handle it. But I know that Mozilla and Google both allow you to do this, so that if a site's legitimate popup windows get blocked (e.g. "Reply to message" in Outlook Web Access[*]) then you can add it to the per-site settings to allow them.
[*] Not my choice. Work uses it.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
They also block the reply windows in some versions of Outlook Web Access. When you clock reply in a mail message, it closes the mail and brings up a reply window. Popup-blockers register this as being a popup, and blocks it. Then again, Google and Mozilla allow you to set per-site overrides.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
This would surely come under the 'painfully obvious' category?
Beware of the Leopard.
The only legitimate use for pop-ups I have seen, are image galleries, but even that purpose is made obsolete by tabbed browsing.
Killing the popup/under isn't enough, it doesn't get the point across. You need to provide the consumer with some tools.
Start with something in the sidebar that shows a list of companies that advertised in popup/under windows. Scan the windows before killing them to provide the information. This way the consumer knows which companies to shun for bad advertising practice without having to actually endure the ads.
Then, using that information, send an automatic email to the corporate headquarters of the company that wants you to buy thier product. In the browser settings the user should have a place to customize this email. It should say something to the effect of "You put a popup/under on my computer and that is shameful. Because you stole my bandwidth for rude advertising I will not be buying your product until you assure me that you have ceased the practice." Return receipt requested.
Next, your browser created database of popup/under pushers should automatically be forwarded to a worldwide clearinghouse. Everybodies data would be consolidated into a large database and the results displayed in a web page of shame. This clearinghouse would also send automatic email and snail mail to the corporations who push the most. This service could be paid by subscription or by paypal donation...but it would never advertise other than being mentioned in the browser help files and configuration menu.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
It opens windows? I never noticed, I use Moz and it blocks that sort of stuff.
Which must be what you meant.
Don't see any better way they can do it tho if they want you to vote in 3 places.
The main article notes that people still click on his pop-ups. I'd have to say that most of these clicks are probably people trying to close the window and clicking it by accident. Net advertisers are especially prone to the belief that if someone clicks on something they did it with serious intent, not by accident or momentary curiosity. I'd be surprised if the people buying these ads ever got much for their money.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Thanks for the links!
If it wasn't for one damn supreme court ruling in the late 1800's we wouldn't have organizations with equal (and usually greater) rights to actual human beings.
It is time to push the pendulum back and separate corporate privileges from real human rights. Maybe it is time for a constitutional amendment making that clear.
This is not about them being able to put together their own PC, or write their own operating system. Adjusting browser settings is hardly comparable to building an engine. It's more like setting the clock on your car's radio, or setting the station presets. True, some of the more advanced settings could easily confuse the casual user, but what's so vague about "allow Web pages to open unrequested windows"? Even if someone weren't familiar with the "windows" terminology, there are classes at community colleges (sound familiar?) on basic computer literacy.
The point is that if a better Web browsing experience was important to them, they could spend an hour (if that's what it took) poking around in their Web browser to see if they could change it to suit them better. It's all about time and curiosity. OK, illiteracy would be a barrier, but is someone who can't read likely to be a big Web surfer?
I've been able to learn the basics about car maintenance and the internal combustion engine without too much trouble. If someone is interested in learning something that would benefit them, it's probably not beyond their reach. The problem is usually that it never occurs to them that things could be better.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
If they want to run "targeted" advertising, then the issue of integrity starts to come up, just as it does in the printed edition. There was an article on /. a while back concerning Ms magazine, and the linked article mentioned that most "women's magazines" were basically worthless because they pandered to the advertisers. Running an advertisement next to a news, opinion, or feature article on the same subject can look very bad indeed.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
If enough browsers had an option to return false information to web sites, the sites couldn't get useful demographic information about ad effectiveness or whether their ads were getting through, and this would hamper their efforts to make life on the net as annoying as possible.
or is this statement,
"DoubleClick says that it is 'developing technology that will enable pop-up ads to evade the blocking software.' "
a statement of intent to violate the DMCA?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
Another reason to keep supporting and using Mozilla. Maybe even toss some cash at the Mozilla Foundation. Pop up blocking has been a feature of Mozilla for like three years or so. Microsoft is just getting around to this now but, only for XP. I'm confident that what ever crap doubleshit puts out, Mozilla will have an answer to it with day or weeks to block it.
The only thing that surprises me is that it's taken Microsoft this long to include pop-up blocking in IE. I know they're usually the last to jump on the bandwagon, but I've had the blocking in Mozilla for a couple of years now, and usually even *Microsoft* isn't *this* slow...
does anyone know of a linux version?
You also forgot to mention the JD5000.net Proxomitron Filters! which is so damn good it even amazes me to this day how powerful it is.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
And why do I laugh? Simple. Because I use Proxomitron and JD500 Filters for Proxomitron.
Not only does it kill all the popups/popunders and FLASH ADS AS WELL but you can also filter cookies, filter javascript nasties, and do so much more with the JD5000 Filters.
I've been using Proxo+JD5000 for the last 2 years now and I've never used anything else. Best of all it's FREE!
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
and Opera makes it easy to block pop-ups
I haven't had any problem with pop-ups since I switched to Opera. I just turn them off (F12 and a click) - and if I come to a site where I need to see them I turn them on while I'm at that site.
Easy.
> --- All Of The Above --- >