Slashdot Mirror
The Return Of The Pop-Up Ad
SYFer writes "Shortly after upgrading my Macs to OS X 10.3.8, I noticed that I was getting pop-up ads on Safari. It had been so long since I'd seen a pop-up, I completely forgotten how annoying they can be. I went over to Apple's Support site to see if there was a relationship, but learned that the timing is just a coincidence (even though there's a lot of the usual FUD and flailing of arms in the discussion forums). In fact, it turns out that the pop-up advertisers (what's the proper denigrating term here?) have finally defeated the pop-up blocking functionality found in many browsers. MacFixIt is running a front page article on the topic and says 'Contrary to initial reports, this problem isn't limited to Safari; subsequent reports have noted pop-under ads victimizing a number of browsers that provide pop-up-blocking features, including the latest versions of Safari, FireFox, Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Camino.'"
I've been coming across popup ads in firefox even with popup blocking on for a couple of months now, though luckily not too many.
The Farewell Tour II
Why do advertisers/companies think that annoying the hell out of people is a good way to make money?????
the macfixit article mentions that these are pop-under ads. i definitely have noticed a few of these in the past week, using firefox on windows...
it really confused me, since like the submitter, i havent really seen anything like it for over a year...
It's sorta like this:
"SCREW YOU, POPUP-BLOCKING BASTARD!! Now buy our cheap cameras.
Hmm...
Drudgereport seems to pop for me on Firefox all of a sudden. It just started happening w/in the last week.
-- jimmycarter
How does defeating a measure designed to block your ads make good business sense? Does forcing your ads upon someone known to hate your approach produce good results? Does irritation equal a higher rate of return because people who hate your ads see them and have a change of heart? Do they say, "Hey, I had no idea those hateful ads were so interesting and useful to me. I think I'll buy their product."
Cuz my instinct is that when a person takes active efforts to banish you from their lives, forcing your way into their living rooms isn't a cost-effective approach. But hey, I don't work in advertising, as anyone who reads my About page on the headlines site knows. I like advertising in its place, but c'mon, if I kick you out of my house, stay there, please.
Just turn off javascript in the browser you use. If a site requires javascript then don't go there.
That is not a viable option. 95% of the sites I (and almost every other web user) visit use javascript in some way, shape, or form. I don't want to take the mindset of "Flash is evil, images are a waste of bandwidth, java is pathetic (even though it is, but that's beside the point). The Internet is full of crap so I should just use Lynx." I like to see things other than plain text and images. I can deal with a couple of pop-up ads here and there until the next version of Firefox comes out.
--guru
They may use javascript, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. I've been surfing without javascript (or java, or flash) for many, many years now, and there are only a select few sites that even have reduced functionality because of it.
Netflix, for instance, requires javascript only to allow you to rate films, and works perfectly without javascript other than that.
The only place where javascript is usually needed is with drop-down lists, which is rather stupid, as a single button next to the drop-down would eliminate the need for javascript for them.
If you find a site that needs javascript, complain loudly to the webmaster, and you will see it change, most of the time.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
They do not care. The people putting up those ads are not the same people sellling you the piece of crap. The marketers, be it a division within, or a separate company, sells your eyeballs to the retailer/manufacturer. They don't care if you personally want the piece of junk or not. What matters is that you saw it. And they can sell that to someone.
One day, we will all realize that for a large segment of the industry, we are not the consumer. We are the product. The are selling your eyes/ears/minds/personal info. Every day, all day.
Wouldn't that also block user-initiated javascript popups? Many sites use these legitamately (though they are annoying).
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
> people using pop-up blockers do not want to see their ads
Advertisers don't give a damn about that.
They know that some of those people -- admittedly a minute percentage, but in a game of millions a 0.1% click-and-buy rate can make you rich -- do not maintain the minimal essential commitment of an online citizen and refuse to ever buy something as a result of invasive, unsolicited advertising.
This is also the reason the telemarketing associations oppose the "Do Not Call" lists. They know that a portion of the people on these lists can still be persuaded to buy things from them.
Why do we want to surrender functionality? Don't give up the web to those that abuse it. Kick them off it by boycotting. Google has almost singlehandedly re-launched the dotcom boom by getting the eyeballs of people who choose to reward good sites and ignore bad tactics such as pop-ups, excessive banners, animations, and blurring between content and advertizement. You have the power to determine content. Don't bow out by surrending both the content and the functionality.