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
...it's time for the return of my shotgun to active duty.
I tolerate text ads because something has to pay for the web, but popups and other abusive ads (like the huge flash ads in the slashdot TEXT ONLY service) just get blocked. The fuckwits deserve not to get any ad revenue for pulling stupid tricks like that.
Beep beep.
I've had this trouble too just recently. I get one off and on at this site: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/index.php.
Call me crazy (ok don't) but I thought I had spyware. I certainly don't. I'm running Firefox 1.0.
Hopefully they don't catch on too quick.
UID 1000000 is just around the corner.
So do those X10 camera ads still exist? I know they used to annoy the heck out of me, but it's been at least 2 years since I've seen one of those ads. I hope they don't come back.
My sig can beat up your sig.
it turns out that the pop-up advertisers (what's the proper denigrating term here?)
Poppers? Plippers? Flippers? Flappers? Wippers? Snappers?
Sorry, kinda high on Red Bull right now.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
...am I lucky.
Lynx is, and continues to be, the ultimate browser for ad-less internet browsing.
Take that, 21st century!
In any event, it's going to be something of an arms race between advertisers and pop-up blockers. Ideally, these jerkwad marketers should realize that people using pop-up blockers do not want to see their ads and display them to someone else who does want to see them. If they can find anyone like that.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
I haven't had any popup ad troubles yet (Mozilla on Linux/x86) but the first time I tried to click on the "Read More" link below the story from Slashdot's main page, the web browser spontaneously closed itself. Interesting feature...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I use firefox, I see pop-ups every once in a while....a long while. Who didn't expect them though?
I mean as pop-up blockers gain in popularity, those who write pop-ups are going to figure out ways of circumventing the blockers.
Duh.
kaens.blogspot.com
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
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...
while browsing macslash.org, oddly enough. Fortunately there's nothing really interesting enough to justify the annoyance. The best way to fight this is to stop using pages that have these, and to let the owners know why you're not giving them your eyeballs any more. Scratch that, the BEST way is to find out what's powering these new ads and kill it on the browser. Ad arms race (again), here we come!
It's sorta like this:
"SCREW YOU, POPUP-BLOCKING BASTARD!! Now buy our cheap cameras.
Hmm...
I'm using Firefox 1.0 and haven't seen a popup in months. What kinds of sites have you been visiting?
Drudgereport seems to pop for me on Firefox all of a sudden. It just started happening w/in the last week.
-- jimmycarter
today in firefox i was subject to a popup. the first one using firefox since installation 4 months ago. i understand that firefox is more secure than IE because it doesnt run ActiveX scripts, and for some other reasons. i currently enjoy surfing with firefox, but is it just a matter of time before exploits are found so virii, popups etc. make surfing the web a living hell once again, or are the benifits of firefox infalable? GAWD HELP US IF POPUPS RETURN!!
So....how long before firefox develops a popup blocker blocker blocker?
I think I just confused myself. Yikes.
With Firefox, you should consider downloading the Adblock extension. That will pretty much block any advertising blockups. I haven't gotten any since i installed this huge multi-hundred line code.
Having long been a loyal Firefox fan, I thought i'd seen the end of pop-ups after I left IE...that bitch. Turns out not only have they defeated the pop-up blockers, but they have moved on from even java-based ads to weird ones. Check out the example at www.drudgereport.com (that site is notorious for pop-ups). It's another one of those cat & mouse games. Once they programmers plug a pop-up hole, the advertisers will work harder (afterall, their wallet depends on it) to develop a new means of displayer their content. This leads me to one conclusion: Advertisers will become more selective of where to put their ads. On the one hand, it could be profitable to have your ads everywhere if you appeal to every audience... I think several advertisers realized long ago that placing a penis enlargement ad on the weightlifting section of www.sportsauthority.com or on www.gnc.com would prove more profitable than Hello Kitty ads on Slashdot. Ad space will not become more valuable if there is an arms race between programmers and advertisers. The great and horrible thing about something like Windows is that it's limited in its possibilities. It is what it is, so advertisers have to work with what they have. If the exploits are all gone, there are even fewer possibilities for advertising. In other words, advertising must be legit: no more registry hacks and spyware. Given this environment of ad-resistant browsers, there's a huge problem: sites like NYTIMES.COM, Yahoo, etc. that have huge amounts of traffic but few forms of revenue other than ads will have to make a choice: do they stop advertising altogether and abandon that model or do they ask all visiting users to respect their ad policy and disable ad-blocking features. This would be monumental because it would depend on the willingness of the consumer to be advertised to. What I suspect would happen after that is NYTIMES (just an example) would offer premium services that they have not yet developed now (image-laden news feeds to next generation cell phones, perhaps). Once again, competition does force companies to respect the lowest bidder in a way. If google chose to give its new operating system away in 2006, MS would be forced to think about giving a version of Windows away for free. So if a major news outlet chose to do away with the ad-based model, all others would be forced to follow suit to keep their readership. Pretty amazing. I wonder where it will take us. Your thoughts?
Martini Glasses
Lately I've been hearing complaints by people using Firefox of some sites having pop-ups come up again. The biggest complaint coming from people that visit The Drudge Report. I too have seen them.
However, ever since I started using the Adblock extension, as well as keeping an updated list of definitons, I haven't had these problems lately.
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.
The Internet ad industry is causing an arms-race they won't be able to win. If the increasingly popular pop-up (or pop-under really in this case) blockers start getting defeated, that is just going to force the average browser user to start using a custom Hosts file of some kind to block nearly all ads. There isn't too much the ad industry can do about that, IMO, with the possible exception of making the ads come from the same server as the content. This will be okay for some sites, but I can't imagine too many people will want to give up that much control over their sites.
(But maybe that control is the ultimate plan of the ad industry - it would really make things easier on them...)
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
I've recently seen popunder ads for GoToMyPC. Using Firefox 1.0. I was on quite a few sites at the time, so not sure which did it, but I did see a site: paypopup.com included in my history. My best guess is that the popunder was triggered by an onclick event over a hidden link (I often click a page in an empty spot to make sure it has the focus before wheel scrolling). I have some of the "move or resize windows" disabled, so I didn't even notice the popunder for a while, was hidden at the bottom right hand corner of the monitor. Only after I maximized that that I saw it was a GotomyPC ad.
I have yet to see a popup manage to get past a hosts file entry :)
On the other hand, if the popups are coming from the same site that you're browsing, that isn't possible.
There is a plugin that allows selective disabling of flash in Firefox. I just completely disable flash myself; I don't go to any sites that need it (thankfully, the trend of flash-only sites, which hit its peak in 2001 or so, is going away).
I started noticing this a couple months ago at experts exchange. Since then Ive notcied it on an ever increasing number of sites.
So this is the last part of the sequel .. Frodo will destroy the precisious pop-ups !!! Keep faith ... really.
maybe we can put pop up ads on THEIR tivos....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I saw a popup while using lynx. Dump them girlie browsers.
HAD
So....how long before firefox develops a popup blocker blocker blocker?
Blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, pop-up, pop-up
Blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, ARGH! Spam! A spam!
(apologies to weebl)
Urge to download...NCSA Mosaic...rising...
www.popuptest.com Firefox once defeated this website with ease, now it shows em all :(
Unfortunetly these days you have to take a agressive stance with popups, by constintly updating programs/plugins, or they start to show up more and more.
Heres to hoping theres a new version of firefox soon!
Like the saying goes, never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes. -Pyrotic
Some of the new popups I've seen are flash based. Luckly, I have the firefox flash block plugin. It just adds an annoying little flash notice at the top of pages trying to open windows.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
I understand blocking pop-up/unders, but there are some problems here. First this can hinder some sites that do use this functionality (like spawning a new window for a secure bank interaction) useless.
Second, some people mistakenly take BLOCK POP-UP/UNDERS with BLOCK ADVERTISE. Not all advertise is bad. How would my site survive without it? How would Slashdot survive without it?
The problem is that on blocking the pop-up/under series, most software also block banner advertising. While this could be a good thing in terms of performance years ago, with current take up on broadband it does cause a hit in publishing sites that rely on advertising to survive.
I ended up disabling my Javascript and the pop-ups don't bother me anymore.
Don't they realize that the people blocking the ads dont want to look at them in the first place, and therefor probably wont click on them?
even more that there was soem way to diable JavaScript on some sites using a blacklist. Not only for popups, but some sites have some crap that manage to bring the cpu of a 2.4GHz box to 100% with a couple windows open and make surfing painfully slow. Mostly for scollders and animations and other unwanted junk. Would be nice to have a firefox extension for that.
///<sig
If they're this insistent about showing ads to people in a form people have clearly taken specific steps to avoid seeing, people are just going to move to "real" ad-blocking software that actually blocks the ad files themselves, whereas if the advertisers had not gotten greedy and satisfied for just displaying inline ads for these people they wouldn't have done anything at all...
Personally I almost sometimes think ability to use non-basic (like, other than simple form validation and access) javascript should be restricted to a whitelist, or something. It would be interesting to have a firefox plugin or something that displays a button that when a site starts trying to use javascript turns red, and I have to click it before they let the javascript run...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
RIGHT! lets get those fuckers. you get the guns and I'll get the fire-bombs. Now, who knows where these bastards live?
I suggest "Pop Tards".
I've also been having this problem occasionally while browsing with Firefox. One would think that text based ads (adsense, one of it's clones) would be a much better way to advertise, as it isn't blocked by default in most browsers.
An email to the website's admin expressing your disapproval might get them to change their minds. After all, any website worth visiting will be created for it's visitors, not spammy advertising.
Yeah, the popups have been getting more frequent on Firefox on some sites, and there's a lot of new flash banner-ads with extremely loud videos embeded in them... and they usually advertise things you don't want blasted from speakers like that new "Invisi-bra" thingy. It's just another form of Spam that noone wants, but everyone gets.
It's Firefox, not FireFox. :)
Small, I know, but annoying.
R.Mo
The sites mentioned in the article (you did RTFA didn't you?) where hit and miss for creating a pop-up in Firefox and Mozilla, but none of them popped-up in Konqueror (Konqueror 3.3.2)
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
I've also recently encountered more pop-ups in Mozilla and at first attributed it to the Macromedia Flash plugin. The following page from Hindustan Times (often linked from news.google.com) puts up a pop-up ad that is quite effective -- centered and blocks most of the content such that you have to move it or click it or close it (no chance to have it pop-under). See it/slashdot it here:
Gurinder Chadha believes Austen was a Punjabi in her previous birth!
Linux at home
As usual, the problem does not affect Opera.
If you want the fastest, best browser... (in my opinion) Opera is the hands-down winner.
Because it works or at the very least the visitor closes the popup or blocks all popups and keeps visiting the site anyways, so they don't really lose anything until you actually stop visiting new sites or send an agry letter to the admin.
why run from Vincenzo?
I'm using Firefox with popup blocking enabled and the Adblock extension and I haven't seen a single popup in longer than I can remember (unless I intentionally click a link to a popup.) I'm also using Mike's Ad-blocking Host file. Maybe that helps tip the scales my way.
if I kick you out of my house, stay there, please.
So Popup Ads are like Jehovah Witnesses?
I'm tempted to do this as well - I just wish there were a better way,
I sent them a brief email: I received an email from them soon after that they had sent to their advertising partner, TribalFusion:
Needless to say, I was very impressed, am browsing Macslash again, and have yet to see any more of these pop-ups.
-Paul
I got one, Firefox 1.0 on Linux. Although because of one of my extensions it loaded in a tab in the background, so I didn't notice it at first.
Nice big ad with a target to try and shoot at President Bush with.
I never got rid of Pop-Up Stopper. It still blocks everything. Just double click on it to allow a new window when needed. Still on of the best small feebies available.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Opera is affected if you have javascript enabled and block unwanted popups set. Opera like Konqueror is immune if either javascript is disabled or block ALL popups is set.
A not-terribly-computer-savvy friend of mine is having problems with his AOL email.
So I suggested he sign up for Yahoo mail, because all the people I know who use it find it perfectly satisfactory.
He can't get signed up for Yahoo mail. I tried coaching him step by step over the phone. I can't be 100% certain of what's happening, but as I followed through the same steps on my own browser, he ran into troubles at exactly the point when Yahoo popped up a confirmation screen on my browser.
I'm about 95% sure he has popup blocking enabled and that's what's preventing him from signing up with Yahoo.
Of course, he doesn't know what a popup blocker is, or how to control it.
So, these days there are probably users who are suffering both from the new popups and from incompatibilities caused by the use of popup blockers.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Here's my (educated*) guess - These sites provide metrics to media buyers. Media buyers have no clue about the 'popup ad arms race' - all they know is they have effective response rates from popups and site XYZ can show that they show popups to N visitors. N is just the amount joe ad buyer is looking for. He doesn't know that the only reason this number is so high is due to circumvention of popup blockers and a royally annoyed audience.
So my guess is that it really is the sites that host the ads which aren't being totally honest.
* I was an advertising major in college and have a little experience with media buying - I would suspect that this is what is happening.
Say, what are you paying these websites you're visiting? I don't see a * next to your name, so I take it you're not a subscriber to slashdot. I guess they should just be grateful for your presence, huh?
Contrary to what you may think, the websites don't make any money by just "showing" the ads. So when you don't click on the text ones, you give advertisers an incentive to make ads more and more intrusive.
The popup is done with a flash applet. I have flashblock installed, so I didn't see a popup intially. Then I clicked to start the tiny flash thingy in the left-hand bar, and a popup came right up.
Popup blockers are becoming standard issue. As a result, circumventing popup blockers is primarily to get to those people who could have been sucked in by a pop-up ad had they not run Windows Update and gotten SP2 auto installed.
Secondly, it might be the advertising services or the pages that host these ads that are trying to bypass blockers. The advertisers probably realize that people who go out of their way to block ads won't every buy anything, but many sites with ads or web ad providers just care about the impression count, not their click through rate.
http://brandonbloom.name
i also think that anti-pop up will face an arms race agains the ploppers ;), however i think that there will actually be a point where all the exploits and counter-remedies have been used up (at least for the dominant browser anyway) that said browser is either A) so bloated that it destroys the possibility of having a positive experience whilst surfing, OR B) has arrived at a point where, no matter how hard the ploppers try, they have no more exploits to ...erm, exploit, that popups are filed away in the history books as being the bain of an imature internet.
Anyway thats what i think, but on a final note, as most popup is advertising, and advertising is supposed to ATTRACT customers, why the HEll would anyone believe that pissing of someone is going to make said person what to visit your site, or buy your product!?! all it makes me what to do is respond with a counter-spam-attack or a denial-of-service attack.
No popups in Galeon 1.3.19.
On Drudgereport I get a notification icon about a popup having been blocked (though I still get an awful Flash ad - when will Firefox's/Mozilla's flashblock extension work with Galeon?). Nothing at all on scienceblog.com.
How the hell can popup ads somehow evade a browser's absolute refusal to open up unrequested popup windows?
I just don't get it. Is this some new kind of highly persuasive Javascripting?
Website: "Come on, pleeease open this window!"
Browser: "Naaah... Oh, OK then."
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
sorry, thats supposed to be "in the end". PS, FBOFW = for better or for worst
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
Looks like there's going to have to be a new feature in Web browsers -- an option to allow sites of your choosing to be accessed with Java and or Javascript. Otherwise, these two will be switched off by default. Damn this is getting frustrating. :(
By God, this works. I downloaded and installed that hosts file and now the banner ads on Slashdot don't appear any more!
And what's to stop me from right-clicking on your link, copying the link location, and pasting the url without the javascript into my address bar?
Many people have noted here that it doesn't make sense for them to get around popup blockers because people who have them installed obviously don't want to see popups. That's not always the case. Who do you think popup's were targeting? Anyone who's clicked on a "free trip to vegas" or a "there's a virus on your computer" ad proablly wasn't too computer savvy. I'm willing to bet they didn't even have much common sense. Atleast not enough to knowingly install a popup blocker. Many companies and schools have them installed by default. SP2 came with a built-in popup blocker for IE. So the result has been alot of people having popup's blocked without them knowning what happened. Those are the people the advertisers are targeting.
There was a thread about this at MacNN.com. People listed sites that were producing pop-ups in Safari and Firefox. None of the sites, however, produced pop-ups in Omniweb 5.1, and I tested all the sites listed.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
On both Safari and Firefox. A poster mentioned that you can stop them by disabling the Tabbrowser Extension. I'd like to share that this worked for me, or at least it has worked so far (OS X.3.8; Firefox 1.0). I hope it works for you. Damn these advertiser scum and their insidious ways.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
I saw a popup while using lynx. Dump them girlie browsers.
Do you use Lynx? I think it's quite unsafe...
I telnet www.blah 80
I've found that opening links in "Tabs" within the same instance of Firefox will nuke all popups that you may come across. Right click the link and select open in new tab
If however, you simply double-click a link in Firefox, it can be easily fooled into generating a pop-under
I use drudgereport.com or cracks.am as a test - just try those sites with IE!
Firefox rocks!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
use adblock
o m/*
block:
http://www.clicksor.com/*
http://z1.adserver.c
http://www.paypopup.com/*
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
I'm not familiar with making add-ons for FireFox (or any other alternative browser for that matter), but would it be possible to make sure that the "fake" click described in BWS's post doesn't activate a window by the browser only letting a "click" pop up a window if the mouse has actually been clicked?
But then, advertisers will start coming up with double-barreled links - a link brings up a popup and the actual link. At the end of the day it's revenue vs what people want and, as long as there is money involved, screw the consumer (from the companies' point of view).
"I develop website based apps and my site uses pop-ups"
Well don't ! Let that be a lesson to you young man. Pop ups are hated. If a site NEEDS pop ups to work a lot of people just won't use it.
i don't know if they're doing that, but if you are using adblock, just
Tools|Adblock|Preferences...
select [x] Hide ads
Doesn't this violate some kind of computer security law? Think about it -- users specifically have some type of technology that does not allow pop-up ads to show. Basically, the ad companies are cracking to get around this. It's almost like a vulnerability being exploited.
Of course, websites could just put a TOS that forfeits your rights.. but I doubt most sites have that (for now).
I've been running the latest greatest Firefox, and frequent the sites mentioned with the problem. I haven't had any issues with pop-ups, at all. The thing I think that keeps em down is that I run javacoolsoftware.com's Spyware Blaster. One of the features is that it blocks ad urls, which I believed was mentioned in the article as a way to stop the ads.
Cheerio!
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
The ad industry could use proxies to make the ads come from the same servers as the content, as you suggest, but this would complicate the setup procedure for including ads on your site, and would not be possible for all sites (I doubt Tripod would help you set up a proxy!) More likely is that ads will be served off of many domains, or only use IP addresses, and the ad-serving code could probably even keep itself updated using some scheme along the lines of Dynamic DNS.
I'm sure that popup ads will be just as easy to quash as email spam.
I use Only tabs, and think "new window"s are an absolutely horrible bug which should never have been included. I loath new windows. I think it's sickening that you need to install a seperate extension in order to hack on a way to use only tabs. I _NEVER_ use new windows.
And I've been getting popups for the past couple of weeks. Like, one or two. (they open in new tabs, not windows, but they still pop up)
So, no, it's not that.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
i agree, but even if it was possible to find someone to prosecute, it would only put other illegit internet activities (P2P) under more pressure as the hyperactive-ninja-nazi-cyborg lawyers begin to prosecute anyone who has commited even the most trivial misdemeanor.
Just curious - can you give an example website that does that?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
nothing for you, but is every single person going to do it for every single link?
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
Forward the URL to the Secret Service. You may have found a way to get an annoying advertiser some serious time in federal prison.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
if web users are actively blocking popups, but advertisers are deceptively forcing them upon users, could that be construed as some sort of harrassment, in a legal sense? Maybe it could be considered some kind of computer crime, much like attempting to access a machine that is obviously not intended for you to access?
I'll second the recommendation of others here: block the ads at the DNS level. Windows users need to add entries to their local hosts file. Myself, running Unix at home, I use a three-step approach. First is a very small web "server" running on a scratch server. It's only job is to respond with a "404 Not Found" to any HTTP request (it does SSL and listens on ports 80 and 443). Second, I create a wildcard zone file for BIND that returns the address of my 404 server for any name in or below the zone's root. Third, I modify the named.conf file for the copy of BIND that serves my network, pointing each domain that's a problem (eg. "fastclick.net", "doubleclick.net") to the wildcard zone. Presto, as far as everything on my LAN's concerned any hosts in or under the domains I list now belong to me and my 404 server, not the companies who registered them. This can obviously be worked around by using IP addresses instead of hostnames in URLs in the ad HTML/JS, but nobody's doing that yet and if they do I can deal with it with some appropriate IP-level redirect rules in my firewall.
Advice to obnoxious advertisers: we control the clients, not you. If we don't like what you're doing, we'll do something about it. If you make it too hard to do something about it and won't change your ways, we can make you cease to exist. And with a Linksys router with custom firmware and configuration the non-geeks can get a turnkey solution too.
I haven't seen any popups in Safari. I'm on MacOS X 10.3.8 but I suspect this is not due to OS or app upgrades, it's some new technology. There is, however, a better solution to popups for Safari users, the plugin PithHelmet. Stops popups and almost all ads dead. Other OS users may find successful solutions with gadets like Privoxy.
Now if only I could figure out a way to get rid of "pop-IN" ads, like those annoying popup-style ads that appear inside the browser window, it's some sort of DHTML trick to make a closable window inside a frame. It's used on sites like wunderground.com and I hate it. Nothing can kill those yet.
Your ID is not low.
And the original poster's is definately high enough to forgive him for Slashdot Noobism.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
After reading the article and some of the responses here I surfed aroud for about 20 minutes to many of the Problem Sites people had mentioned, I did not recieve a single popup/pop-under ad when using just Firefox's pop-up blocker. I'm not sure whats going on, maybe all these sites were influenced by the negative press here.
As for the flash you mentioned, have you looked into privoxy? You can create your own rules to have it strip out all flash from sites if you like.
Also if someone can figure out how the pop-up blockers are being defeated a rule could be written to strip the code from the page as well.
I am unable to get a popup from any of the sites being mentioned using firefox. Currently I'm using firefox 1.0 under linux (suse 9.2 pro). Are you guys who are getting them running windows?
A solution to this is to install the AdBlock extension for Mozilla/Firefox. Once you've done this, grab this list of search strings. Once you've done this, import the text file and you should be home free. Try to keep that file updated as it should be a good starting-off point, but will become outdated as time goes by.
this is the plan.
1. create a new free mail account. have this open in a separate window all the time.
2. everytime you get a pop-under, pop-over, pop-in, save the html and attach it to a mail to abuse@(site) and webmaster@(site) and report it as "unwanted ads, return to sender"
3. don't bother reading the incoming replies.
Privacy is terrorism.
I have Firefox 1.0, Adblock with updates, and NoAds Host. I haven't seen an ad in a Loooong time. Passed every pop up test here with no problem. This site is the only one that got me. Guess I stop reading Hindustan Times.
Better yet, switch to a text-only browser!
I haven't tried this with the specific examples referenced here, but it ought to work in general in Firefox and other *zilla browsers.
1) Type about:config in the URL bar
2) find dom.popup_allowed_events
3) change the value to the empty string
Now no events allow popups by default. That means if you want to let a site pop up a window from Javascript you will have to whitelist it.
This blocked the popups on drudgereport.com for me when I tried it a few months back. I don't leave this setting on, for now, since I prefer to choose not to frequent sites that maliciously abuse me with ads. However, if it starts to become a regular nuisance, I will set Firefox back to this aggressive anti-popup setting. After all, nobody really NEEDS to use Javascript popup windows, and if I can see where a legitimate site is trying to do so, it only takes a few seconds to whitelist them in FF's popup blocker.
Just turning off JavaScript is horribly shortsighted.
As per the cousin post, there are good reasons for pop-ups in an application context; because JavaScript variables can be retrieved from spawned windows, pop-ups also make a good alternative to session cookies without placing anything in local magnetic storage.
But no sane developer is willing to rely on such an approach, mostly because of BOFH's with attitudes like that.
...When in doubt, think for yourself.
Well, here is what I do in Firefox. I haven't received any pop-ups (yet). In the options dialog, under "Web Features" you'll find that on the far right across from the "Enable Javascript" checkbox is a button that says, "Advanced."
"Allow scripts to: " (remove check marks next to the following)
- "Move or resize existing windows"
- "Raise or lower windows"
- "Disable or replace context menus"
I also uncheck "Hide the status bar" but that's a personal preference.After unchecking those along with having the pop-up blocker enabled I no longer get any pop-ups. And I really don't see unchecking those having any profound viewability problems on the web. If a site needs to resize your window, it's usually because they want to open a pop-up along side it. :P Same goes for raising/lowering too.
ok, that sounds dirty... but I switched to FF because of the popup blocking, amoung many other features that I liked...
Today I was shocked to see my first popup ad for spyware removal...
Im thinking that this is the beginning of "A Very Bad Thing"
The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
On-click popups annoy me, anyway. If I want a webpage to open in a new window or a new tab, I have key combinations designed to do that for me. If I want it to open in the same window, I have a click for that, two. I would prefer if webmasters wrote webpages that respect my wishes about what window a page appears in.
These on-click ads are just the final straw in convincing me that a webpage should never be allowed to open new windows.
If Firefox doesn't quickly add a feature to block all on-click popups except for websites that I specifically allow to do it, I'll likely be hacking the feature in myself.
About 3 years ago I was using FreeBSD with FilterProxy installed and using Mozilla on top of that.
Two years I made the switch back to Slackware with Mozilla and stopped using FilterProxy.
I now use Firefox (after some annoying funkyness with Mozilla's download manager that suddently stopped working)
The point is. I run Linux and Firefox. I keep JavaScript, Java and Flash enabled. I have AdBlock but I rarely if ever use it and only to block annoying animated gifs.
JavaScript is only allowed to Raise and Lower Windows, Disable or Replace Windows, and Change Images.
I have not gotten a SINGLE popup. I do have Block Popups turned on.
Granted, I browse considerably less porn websites than I used to...but still.
I'm popup free. I can't understand why you guys are getting these popups except for maybe two possibilities:
1) You're browsing some EXTREMELY seedy TGP porn content.
2) It has something to do with your Wintel or MacOS machines.
its quite simple.. they're using flash to run the javascript popup control. Its in the process of being fixed by mozilla/safari for sure.
ok.. so heads you lose tails I win. right?
I've been seeing popups for a long time with firefox, but only popups that occur after clicking something. (for example at www.packetnews.com I've always had ads with firefox) I think its because Firefox doesnt' really have any way at that stage to know if its something you requested or just an ad, so I'm assuming they just make their best guess.
I done got poor grammar skills an' I be proud o that.
1. Get an old POS PC from a trashpile
2. Install Smoothwall on it. It's free..
3. Install Ad Zapper following THESE directions.
Any and ALL system that you connect into your lan will have ads blocked whether they want to or not.
Well actually you only need to uncheck the top two. Disabling or replacing context menus is a pet peeve so I uncheck that one too. (I should have proof read before hitting submit).
plz, it's wonderful.
now if only someone will remake the badger song with the popup for hormel in it.
p.s. please dont sue me hormel.
I guess you need to install the adblocker extension. I'm having no troubles at all, and I followed all provided links to check!
Not that I doubt it exists, but ... I browse with Javascript on, using FF 1.0 and .9.3 on Windows, and I haven't seen any popups. I do use Adblock, but I haven't added a new domain in a long time (except when I had to move my list from .9.3 to 1.0, or whenever the extensions changed). The only ads I see are on a few small forum sites run by people I know whose living comes from those sites - i.e., I'm willing to do 'em a favor, since they've done me one by running the site.
Though I've advocated (read, bored ppl with) firefox (FF) usage over the last 2 years, I've been brought to the boil with the pop-up ads coming to view on FF over the last few months, my tolerance having been extensively tested with the very sluggish page rendering of FF on Win XP as compared to FF on my Mandrake (Does anyone know why and can he/she be bothered to tune up the engine?) and I decided to try out Maxthon, despite knowing it's built on IE. Maxthon's not as versatile and add-on friendly as FF (unless someone can point me to untapped un-Googled resources out there?), but it's holding up to the pop-up on-slaught very well so far. And hopefully, :-p, this post won't bring Maxthon's usage to the attention of the pop-up coders...
Which, if I may digress, brings to mind the question, who are the people responsible for the evils- pop-ups, spamming, spyware? (ok, before you release the hounds, I'm not looking for M$ as an answer) Gasp, could they be among us? :-/ I mean theses are geeks and/or coders, who are they? Can someone drive some civic sense into their selfish criminal little brains?
Lynch them but don't you dare Flame away!
Using the latest version of Proxomitron + JD5000 filterset (Gryphens actually based off JD5000) right here
http://www.users.on.net/~grypen/Downloads/?M=D
Will 100% kill off those Zophar Domain ad's and popup's/unders with the right filters active.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Isn't it easier just to use POST instead of coming up with elaborate javascript workarounds to hide the address bar?
Why not fork?
Fine, but you don't get a gun until you tell me your name.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
I get this popup when I go to http://www.spacedaily.com/. I am using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0. This idea of "only the popups you request" (by clicking on a link) has always pissed me off. When I select the option "no popups" I mean NO POPUPS. Clicking on a link that has Javascript do a popup should just result in the taskbar saying "popup blocked".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Since /. won't let me post the filter here, and the bandwidth limit has been exceeded on the Geocities page, I've mirrored it (Courtesy of Google Cache): http://www.wildgardenseed.com/Taj/adblock-filter.t xt
I hope they don't mind...
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
The problem I've ran into on the sites I manage is the posting of Unicode values via links, which seems to absolutely require Javascript (AFAIK).
For example, a list of non-ASCII user names/IDs which loads that user's information page when their each link is clicked. I've found that Unicode values do not always work as URL parameters.
Many times forms with submit buttons do NOT cut it in an interface, and so I'm forced to set hidden fields and submit the form via javascript.
Anyone know if if there's a better way?
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Has anybody seen DHTML pop-ups around? They effectively utilize JavaScript and CSS in collaboration to unhide a centered page element containing an ad. They tend to contain a link to activate a JavaScript function to hide the block. I've also seen them disappear after a short amount of time.
How is a web browser supposed to block that kind of pop-up? Why don't we just all disable JavaScript since it is going to be abused so much? And like a previous poster has mentioned, not too many sites seem to absolutely require it; I surf with JavaScript disabled for quite a while before remembering I turned it off.
Audioscrobbler
Looks like i'm going to have to start practicing
I hate hearing this term because it makes it sound like a webbrowser is inherintely designed to show pop-up windows. It is simply a JavaScript command. If your web browser chooses not to implement it, then it doesn't show up. There is nothing to "block" you simply "ignore" the command to show the pop-up window.
Hmm.
Since you went through the trouble of preventing *them* from gaining access to *your* page rendering software... can what they've done be construed as the circumvention of an access control device?
After all, they have deliberately initiated a packet stream that, in every sense of the word, has caused an unwanted and unauthorized impact on the state of your machine, and that stream was specifically crafted to defeat any measures you may have taken to prevent it.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
http://www.drudgereport.com/
with javascript enabled i get a popup in mozilla-1.7.5 even with "Block unrequested popup windows" checked in preferences, but if i disable javascript i don't get popups...
I hate new windows too. I could never get any extension to eliminate new windows working, but I just tried this tip today and it seems to work, no extension needed. I'm not sure why, but I haven't seen any of the popups on sites people are mentioning here.
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Oddly enough, only in the past week or so has Mozilla been letting through the occasional popups. Looks like you're right on time with this one, boys. But really, who cares. I think mozilla's going to patch this stuff up quick, and even if not, I'm still getting so few with firefox that it doesn't largely effect me.
I've stumbled on at least one Firefox bug that allowed popups through. (For more details and a test case, head over to bugzilla where I reported it as bug 273851.)
I haven't actually seen it exploited yet, but it seems that any advertisers who really wanted pop up windows would be able to find holes here and there in many browsers. If it was done a lot, though, it probably wouldn't be long before they were filled.
I like popups. At this point you think I'm nuts. If a site has hacked around my browsers pop-up blocking, then that is a great indicator that I don't want to be at that site! let alone give them information such as my email address. Most sites don't do this kind of thing, and the ones that do are sites you probably shouldn't be at.
I am currently of the belief that pop-ups are 100% associated with a scam. I assume many other /.ers are as well. What needs to be done is to convince marketers that EVERYONE associates popups with a scam. Therefore they will never get anyone to click on the links. We all need to learn that CTRL+W shortcut, or at least the ALT+F4. If you know someone who doesnt know these, please teach them. It will help alot.
95% of the sites I (and almost every other web user) visit use javascript in some way, shape, or form.
I don't think that's true. Or at least the javascript is just unnecessary gubbins.
I've been browsing with javascript disabled for the last 4 years. I only occasionally have to load up my other (js enabled) profile or konqueror to check something in.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
Pop up blockers are security feature...anyone who writes a program that deliberately circumvents a security is liable under the DMCA. Anyone who distributes code that does the same thing is also liable.
If the corporate boys are going to screw us using the DMCA why cant we do the same thing?
When clicking on articles on his slanted website, it will open a popup ad along with the article. It defeats the Opera 7.54 pop-up blocking.
Homer: Can you swing a sack of doorknobs?
Jimbo: Can I!
Homer: OK, You're in.
Moe: But ya gotta supply your own knobs!
I've been using Mozilla and Privoxy http://sourceforge.net/projects/ijbswa/ for over six months now and haven't had a single problem with popups. Granted, sites that are heavily dependent on javasctipt and flash are not always functional.
I've been using Privoxy for some time now. None of the sites listed as having a means to get past popup blockers have managed to get one up on me with Privoxy. It's still not perfect, but it's far better than the built-in browser ones.
Is there a way to have javascript only on sites you specifiy? It would be great to have javascript disabled by default and then have a function key so that I could allow it for a specific site.
Haven't you heard of gmail?
Are you really going to complain loudly to the webmaster of every little javascript-based site you want to use and wait for them to redo the site?
Do you realize that many sites are actually faster with javascript on, because there is a non-trivial application running on the client site, and it needs to download no (or very little) data for many of the requests, as opposed to loading the whole damn page every time you want to change the width of a column in a table?
"why cant we do the same thing?"
Just a wild guess here, but possibly because they're not necessarily copying anything and the blocking features aren't necessarily protecting intellectual property.
DMCA has nothing to do with it. I'm personally more in favor of hunting these fuckers down and torturing them with pliers, myself.
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.
popups are antihammer
-1 (Troll) is antihammer
A program I highly recommend for Internet Explorer 5.0x and newer users is Maxthon by MySoft Technology.
:-) I wouldn't be surprised that Microsoft buys the rights to Maxthon and incorporates them into IE 7.0.
Essentially a shell add-on for IE, one of its features is a very powerful function called AD Hunter that blocks most pop-ups and also blocks a lot of ads that eat up CPU time when displayed.
You know, I'm sure glad that there aren't any popups on the website of Cryptie, the world's hottest goth.
Personally, I think that sometimes new browser windows are ok, especially if you need to differentiate between them easily, and the task bar or alt-tab does not display or let you step through multiple tabs in one window. Now if some crafty programmer made a Firefox plug-in that let you have the option to right-click on a multi-tabbed window and select which tab to go to, that would be great... hint... hint...
today is spelling optional day.
I have also been hit by a couple ads lately and have decided to help the ad companies out by viewing their ads. I downloaded the new version of Opera, and every pop under ad I get gets opened in a new opera window with an automatic refresh of .25 seconds. I just want to do my part to help the ad companies make a couple bucks for finding new ways to annoy me.
One possible solution would be to include a command to "Disable Javascript for this site." Then we could block Javascript only for sites that abuse it to put up pop-ups or pop-unders.
Ironically, pop-up blocking is the only thing that keeps me from blocking ads entirely with Privoxy. I don't mind looking at well-behaved ads if they help maintain the sites I like, but the guys selling the pop-ups are poisoning the well for everybody.
seems to do the trick, since these bloody things are usually Macromedia Flash adverts.
Oh well, what the hell...
But I think they just want to make you and I think something either very positive or very negative to associate with their stinking brand, to make it impossible to forget that brand name. We're stupid enough to allow it to work, Microsoft being a case in point. And how about TV commercials? They're so annoying that I haven't watched anything other than VCR's or DVD's in years. Yet it pays for all that programming.
It's more secure and not as exploited. Pop-ups aren't a security issue like ActiveX crap can be. It's redering a window you don't want, sure, but that doesn't mean that Firefox is allowing it to compromise your system. popups != virii ... though they DO seem to be spreading again.
The HOSTS file from that site is 210K, and they suggest shutting down your "DNS Client" service on win2k to avoid slowdowns because of the size of the file. They say "the above "Service" is not needed".
I don't get it. It's not a "service", it's a service. I can't say for sure that it's "needed", but I know stopping it hosed a VPN connection I had up.
Is anyone using this huge HOSTS file? Personally, I do redirect a few domains to 127.0.0.1 in case I accidentally click an "ad" link that looks real... but it won't do a darned thing for popups (I don't care much that it would prevent the image from loading.. I'd still get the window).
In my opinion, here is the proper way to deal with this and any similar scourge:
1. Install Privoxy. It writes every bit of HTTP activity to its log file.
2. Wait for a pop-up ad to appear.
3. Immediately consult the Privoxy log file. Determine what URL the pop-up came from.
4. Block out the entire domain from which the pop-up came from. Use whatever IP blocker you like best: Your DNS relay, your firewall, your hosts file, or Privoxy.
5. Repeat as needed.
Stop blocking popups. Start blocking Javascript ENTIRELY. Allow websites you deem as not-a-bunch-of-sleazy-a$$holes the privelege of having javascript turned on.
Ok, I know the subject doesn't fit the body but this is what we need. It will put an end to these parasites.
- Alex
Latest Firefox on my computer recognizes the perfidious attempt and blocks it, displaying the yellow "I smited the evil" info bar.
"There are hundreds of game theorists at the gates, sir, and they want to hold an election!"
Penguin Follower has it right. This works for me; but there is another factor.
Go to the children's sites (porn, games, sports, entertainment, ad nauseum) and you will have no end of marketing technology blasted at you.
Go to adult sites (corporations, universities, respected publishers, etc) and you will enjoy relative freedom from that foolishness. Why, it's just like the real world!
...omphaloskepsis often...
Can you tell us which sites are doing this? I've yet to see any ads that Firefox's popup blocker and AdBlock extension haven't been taking care of. I'd like to see what this new annoyance is so that I can block it before it becomes an issue for me. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If Firefox and similar browsers were perfectly effective at eliminating ads, eventually word would spread, and pretty soon everybody -- not just Johnny Slashdot but everybody -- would surf the web ad free. Oops. There just went the web-advertising market.
So the advertisers have a powerful incentive to combat whatever ad-blocking techniques are developed, even in fringe browsers. They do not want those browsers to become mainstream, but, even more so, they absolutely do not want us to lose our tolerance for their advertisements.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
not at the moment, I think it's been happening at sites which only show an ad once a day or every couple of days. I'll post a link when I see it again, though.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I'm really surprised it has taken this long for them to figure out you can open new windows in SWFs. You can even embed the link to open as parameters passed to the SWF, so you don't need a different SWF for each ad. Solution, IP/DNS based blocking (the window would still open, just would be blank), or disable the Flash plug-in. DHTML based ads are still around, too, and those are even more annoying!
today is spelling optional day.
Not always, plus it isn't elaborate window.open() location=no.
Sometimes you use querystrings that pass values and you validate any input. Plus if someone really knows how to hack at all post won't stop a damn thing (I can write an example in about 30 seconds to demonstrate). In web apps like C programs you always assume the data you are processing is trying to do something it shouldn't, and as a consequence you validate everything. I don't fuck around when it comes to HIPAA. Going to jail for not properly securing PHI is not an option.
Plus click reply and look at the location bar on slashdot.
...that entire domain appears to be served off a local, nonroutable IP, on which a webserver provides only a clear 1x1 gif for all requests....
...and it's not the only one</you may say I'm a dreamer>
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
I don't mind, just remember to take the mirror down once the site comes back up. Oh, and for some reason, you pasted the filters twice there.
G
For Adblock users who are not using complicated filters, but rather just manually blocking everything, or using simple expressions, there is a nice site with constantly updated Adblock filters. Well, probably several, but this is one I know of. These block pretty much everything.
Normally, it's located here, however it seems as though he's used up his alloted bandwidth. You can get a Google cache of one of the latest filter lists though.
In the back of my mind I keep thinking there was a law on the books about people taking control of a computer without the users consent. Now it seems to me that circumventing a pop up blocker to open a new window violates this law and the advertiser and possibly the website could be held liable.
I know this law is on the books maybe someone could point it out.
FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt", a particular strategy used by sales people from a large company (IBM, then) to get customers not to buy competitors that are new to the market. You have to be pushing a large product as "the safe, mainstream choice" in order to be "spreading FUD".
FUD does not stand for misinformation or stupidity. We have better words for that, like misinformation and stupidity.
If I set an option to block popups in my browser and a website circumvents that option, is it breaking DMCA?
I've been noticing some popups squeezing their way through Avant's popup blocker, myself. A recent upgrade fixed it somewhat, but I have a feeling it won't be the end of'em.
Sometimes I just fail to see why these companies keep forcing ads on us like this. I mean, we don't want'em, we go out of our way to prevent'em, we never click on'em. And when it comes to email ads, anyone with half a brain knows not to try and get refinanced by a company who slipped an email past your filters by using horrible language and spelling.
But then I remember that a majority of the world is filled with stupid people, who will in fact click these things, and even go as far as to buy things from'em. So unless humanity's intelligence factor happens to spike suddenly, I don't see an end to these ads anytime soon.
Get Ad Mucher http://www.admuncher.com/ It not only blocks all pop ups, but it gives you very customizable options as to what is blocked, and at what sites, including popups AND banner and text ads, to the point where I hardly see any ads anymore, not to mention the saved bandwidth. Plus it gives you a log of everything that is blocked! Probably is my favorite program ever.
Thanks for the heads up on the double. I will take it down when you're done being slashdotted... BTW, If you would like a "real" host, I can offer you some web+FTP space if you'd like. Email me at taj&wildgardenseed.com (of coure, & becomes @). -- Taj
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
You can modify your hosts file to point back to localhost for ad hosting sites. Mike Skallas maintains one here. There is even an installer for Windows users.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
This is very useful. It's worth noting, also, that removing all "allowed" popup events doesn't completely kill your ability to use sites that need popups...it just causes Firefox to warn you that it has blocked something, allowing you to adjust settings for that site.
Seems to have fixed all those new popups for me.
It's a common misconception that the pop-ups and other annoying intarweb ad-vectors are created by the same people whose products you see advertised over them, however this is not the case.
Generally there is a company with a product that they want advertised, and a company whose product is you, the audience who sees the advertisements. To the companies who sell audiences to product manufacturers there is a large incentive to make the number of individuals in their audience as large as possible. Hence going through all the trouble to circumvent your carefully placed defences.
As an aside, most large 'web-aware' advertisers (the products you see advertised) have decent geeks in their employ within their interactive marketing sub-dept, so they (the marketing organization as a whole) are somewhat aware of the futility of sending their message to users who do not want to see it.
I suspect there is a dynamic within the market where those with the best audiences for sale, ie: those most likely to click and follow through to a sale or whatever, charge the most and probably avoid annoyance tactics as much as possible. While those who specialize in circumventing the anti-popup measures sell for lower prices to more marginal advertisers (pr0n, free ipod scams, low budget startups etc).
l4h
IE7 wish checkbox: ignore onLoad / onUnload
This simple option in the upcoming IE7 (or any other browser) will KILL ALL UNSOLICITED POPUPS FOR GOOD! No more 3rd party popup blockers will be needed anymore!
As a stopgap measure, HTTP proxies can be 'recoded' to 'rename' onLoad / onUnload on the HTML that passes through them so the Javascript interpreter won't see them. However, this tatic will likely be construed as some sort of copyright violation by the media bigwigs and will be fiercely opposed....
The only unblockable advertising left will be that of webmasters PERSONALLY hosting ads alongside their content on their domains....
Have to thank you for this. I've used Filterset.G for about a month now, and I love it. Too bad group filtering with auto-update isn't supported natively in AdBlock.
I am right there with you. I'm sorry, but there just aren't any websites that are so important to me that I feel the need to beg for bullshit by turning on a bunch of pointless features.
The very concept of a pop-up blocker is stunning to anybody who has been using the web since before Javascript became common. (To say nothing of the folks who have been using the Internet since before it had websites on it!) I can think of very few features that were so bad that users begged for ways to prevent the feature from being used... And said feature wasn't removed from the product!
Can you imagine if car makers started including bombs in all their cars, and you had to get or make a special explosion-blocker? You'd think that it would occur to the manufacturer to just not install the bomb, rather than working on the ultimate explosion blocker!
I'm using more exclamations points than is my habit, but only because I find the situation so excrutiatingly baffling. If, in IE6, MS had simply not bothered to include the code to open new windows automatically, the world would be a better place, and few people would have felt the need to switch to better browsers. Any sane web designer has come to realise that their user's hate popups. Further, any sane web designer has to deal with the fact that their 'legitimate' popups are likely to be blocked. Thus, any sane web developer should just stop using popups as part of the actual site, so all popups can be assumed ads, and we can just abandon the feature entirely.
To quote Mr. Jeff Foxworthy's guide to UI design... When you have features that make front page news when they get used, because your users hate those features so vehemently, you might be a bloat-peddler.
At first I just moved the extension out of its directory until I needed it, but then I found a flash blocker (google for "flash.xml") which is called up from my userContent.css file, and works in both Mozilla and Safari. I also have a bunch of "{display:none !important}" CSS checks in there which make many ads disappear completely from a page, with the only trace being a collapsed "Advertisement" box.
It changes the Flash embed into a big button with a red italic "f" that you have to click on to start the Flash running. This stops a LOT of ads. People may be complaining lately, but not me. I still only every now and then see a pop-under or a "layer" ad. Like one or two a month.
There are only a few minor negatives to it. One, it doesn't work with a file: link, so I have to put the flash.xml on a web server, two, sometimes a Flash won't start properly after being clicked on, and three, some sites don't load flash in the "correct" way (with the Mickeysoft classid or a codebase of swflash.cab) and will start the Flash anyhow.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
snopes, for one. It's not the only place I've seen it, though.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
just hit that site and found out HST killed himself.
well...shucks. it do bring a tear to the eye.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Im sure there is a law dealing with cirumventing security measures on computers. It may not be the DMCA...
Is there any extension for FF that disables Javascript based on url?
Don't use the web.
Seriously, though, I don't like the solution of pulling out IE every time I want to see the flash on a certain page. Oh, sure, I block most of it with adblock anyway, but sometimes I want to see it...and I don't want to open another, more annoying browser to do it.
This is a bit of a "security hole" that flash is able to give instructions to the browser, however. Perhaps Mozilla's plugin code should have some abilities to stop popups or other instructions from the loaded plugins.
I do use IE when I have to, but I'd prefer that to be never. So, it really irks me when people suggest that it's a perfectly acceptable solution to use IE some of the time. Most people simply don't want two programs that have the same purpose. All the things I get with Fx will disappear when I have to see the site in IE, so I'd prefer to be able to load as many sites as possible in Fx. "Just load it in IE" isn't acceptable if Fx is to replace IE. It's not a good permanent solution.
-Dan
TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT!!!
Good god! How tough can it be???
Aside from popups, JavaScript is being used for patently stupid things like emulating links. If we just complain whenever we see this, or better yet go elsewhere, people will start to get the idea.
Boycott sites that use JavaScript. Let their webmasters know.
I have been using Privoxy http://www.privoxy.org/ for about 2 years now. That, in addition to firefox does an excellent job of blocking popups in addition to filtering most ads. I've become so used to ad-free browsing that whenever I use someone else's computer I'm amazed at all the crap that I've been missing. or not missing
It's recent versions of Firefox that enabled them. Get an older build of Mozilla. Not only will it keep blocking, but it will work better, crash less, and has a nicer UI.
A closer analogy would be a television, or DVD player.
There's a certain sweet spot for television. Too many ads and you'll lose viewers, and features such as VCR & TIVO ad skips gain importance.
Such as the disable menu flag on DVD's. As long as DVD manufacturers only used the 'feature' for the FBI/Interpol warning, people weren't too pissed off. As soon as Disney started setting it for their 5+ minute ad bonanzas at the beginning, people starting shoping for players that ignore the flag(and often getting region & macrovision free in the process).
The whole problem came from, like many 'features' from microsoft, is that, used correctly, they are useful features. Now, I have seen a couple sites that open a new window in a more or less useless way, but as a legitimate site(which is why I like white lists). I have also seen sites that use popups in a legitimate fashion, for control and form entry. But just like the scripting in microsoft office that allows a user to mass mail things like customized form letters to customers ultimatly, when combined with other features allows the macroviruses to reign.
I don't read AC A human right
The whole point of the article is that some advertisers are finding ways of getting popups through even if the user has done all of this. One technique is to open the popup through a Flash animation, but Flashblocker will take care of that. Another way is to use a click through, where you click on a link that opens a popup, which then opens the target page in the main window; I don't know how to stop this because you do request the popup. The other thing they do is to put ads in a layer over the window. I don't know how to stop this one either.
If you find a site that needs javascript, complain loudly to the webmaster, and you will see it change, most of the time.
What about complaining loudly to a webmaster that inflicts pop-up ads on you that are purposely written to get around pop-up blocking techniques?
Ever tried to use a site like ESPN's NBA Game Updates with the live updates of boxscores, play-by-play information and the Flash shot chart? I guess not.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
I was surprised a couple months ago to see the web-development site sitepoint.com employing odd scripting to subvert Mozilla's blocking. It's saddening to see a resource for inovative web programming discussions blazing a trail in the employment of abusive scripting.
Well, with all the marketing articles, I guess it's not that shocking. Never mind.
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
Every 2 seconds somewhere in the world an idiot clicks an advert in a popup. What we need to do is to find him and shoot him in the head.
I never understood why prevending pop-ups is such a big deal. After all, to create a window, the application must call some function of the window manager or X server or whatever environment it's written for. Browser writers could provide an option which says "if enabled, never, under any circumstances, issue the new window call". The option cannot be disabled from a script. After all, you cannot abuse functionality if it's not there. What more would you need to deal with popups?
"...including the latest versions of Safari, FireFox, Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Camino."
:-)
Slashdot is always leaving Opera off its list of browsers....oh wait...nevermind.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Each browser should have an if statement around all code that allows a window to spawn.
if(user_wants_it)...
then on the tooldbar, just have a single checkbox (unckecked) with the label 'do you want it baby?'
I would happily surf past all websites that do ANYTHING to href links, in fact, I want a firefox plugin that will deobfuscate all links (not talking about server side redirects, but javascript links) and change everything to a non-targeted vanilla href.
Then I can decide where it opens.
FireFox has loooong been a victim of some malicious javascript attacks. OK, yes, I admit those websites were not really WS. wtf.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
So the end of it all is that I better design my webpage so that it works with absolutely no opening of new windows at all, because in the end we'll win that arms race by just disabling that function entirely and be done with it?
Another useful feature ruined by advertisers. Can we please just shoot them all?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is my point though. If you don't trust any input from the query string, or POST or what have you, why are you going to make your users go through the extra song and dance of enabling popups?
Why not fork?
You know. Based on your recommendation, I went over to snopes and didn't get an ad. I browsed source on the page and guess what I saw?
document.write('');
I swear to god the ad companies are taking lessons from the spammers. Mispell or concat word together to try and get past popup blockers!
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Damnit slashdot stripped out my script tag even in plain text! Go to snopes and view source for the page and you'll see:
c gi/v=2.0S/sz=468x60A|728x90A/'+rnum+'/RETURN-CODE/ JS/"></scr'+'ipt>');
document.write('<scr'+'ipt src="http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/ad1874c.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
that should be no problem for any competant built-in popup blocking, which would act on the final generated page, not the source.
But then, maybe not, since checking every document.write request to see if it creates a popup may add too much overhead..
dont really know. Doesnt sound at all hard to get around and it's a trick that has been used for years.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Ploppers
It would seem that the problem which exists is as follows:
Since you really can't dissuade the middlemen in a material way, you need to dissuade the businesses from continuing in employing such practices.
The best way to do this would be to create a list of businesses which employ such techniques and enter them into a boycott database. Ala RBL.
Another method might be to employ a plugin which, when it encounters a site which attempts a pop-up, pop-under, or pop-revenge and the site is not a pop-approved site, the plugin will continue to suck a variety of files from the site. Be it the advertisement media or something else "heavy" on the page.
With enough people with the plugin and continually sucking bandwidth from the business's site, this will incur a bad-behaviour-curbing financial cost to the companies which insist on making money at the expense of web-surfers.
If enough people have the plugin, then the business' ill-behaved website will get a "time out". Businesses, after a while, would potentially get the hint and stop employing such techniques... or take the MPAA/RIAA route and start suing their own potential customers.
Either avenue hurts their business or their business image.
If businesses claim to be looking out for their customers, they should act like it. They should conduct business legally AND ethically. To employ means to circumvent a protective function on a web browser is basically, breaking into someone's house to post banners and advertisements. It is, in my mind, just a stone's throw away from malware/adware/spyware.
Winged Power Photography
Consumers and the business advertising through these ads are two steps removed. There is a always go-between advertising agency that offers x hits for y dollars of either targeted or non-targeted traffic. That's all there is to it. And yes, the conversion rates for this sort of marketing are far lower than through more "friendly" formats (AdWords, Overture, whatever), but the cost is of course significantly lower. To be honest, most of the time the overall CPA is lower when using these nefarious ad serving methods.
That's why they still exist - because it's cheaper than PPC marketing. The day that changes, no one will bother with this sort of evil shit any longer.
Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
If you want to curb the popups until Firefox releases a new patch, you can set dom.popup_maximum to 1. This will keep 99% of legit items that pop up working while limiting the amount of popups you have to take care of yourself.
The browser has to do a number of things and call and API function to open a new window. Is it that hard to make it check and see if the window request comes from me clicking on a link?
Come on Opera has the best features, it's totally under the radar and it's faster and better than anything out there... the size of firefox with e-mail functionality...
You guys need to get off your high horse and come inside... there's no fat lady in sight.
You expect me to click on a link to "gnaa.nimp.org"?
/. doesn't display it all for those of us who browse with the "display URLs" feature on.
Oh, nice idea on the subdomain though - I notice
It's official. Most of you are morons.
there is another way, which as of today most webmasters still avoid (but may start using soon) and thath is to have a div that is hidden/displayed by javascript as PART of the page.
you could never turn these off categorically.
As a user, there is no difference to me, but i guess that webmasters aree either feeling that
1- everyone is blocking popus so it's ok
2- whe a popup hides part of your screen its not the same as when you do it inside your own html.
well it is the same thing.
-- Avishalom is usually vish
I too noticed this, but contrary to most, realised that they must simply be doing what has been possible for a long time but which no one had really bothered with, with the exception of porn sites and other spyware "value adders", until now.
Basically, it just uses the age old technique of using the document.write method, but obfuscated, to write other, obfuscated tags which are not recognized by the blocker as being new script tags, which themselves call a new obfuscated pop.js code that actually, in yet another round of obfuscation, produces the actual pop-under code: In essence, if one can block any request for the server of the obfuscated pop.js, or pop.cgi or whatever code, one will be in peace for a while. This can be done via adding the following lines to the hosts file on Windows (C:Windows(or WinNT)\System32\drivers\etc\HOSTS) or on Linux or MacOSX (/etc/hosts) or simply via your firewall software, which I'm sure we all use, don't we?
127.0.0.1 www.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net
I have the code from the above server, as used by scienceblog.com, but I won't post it, as it's copyrighted, because the last thing I want is some internet low life trying to sue me for their own low life purposes.
Keeping an up to date hosts file - good one's with hundreds of ad server entries can be found on the net such as here - is probably still the most effective way of killing most ads on your computer.
> 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
Yes it is. It just requires a per-site blocking of javascript, sort of like AdBlock. Some sites require it, and some don't, and generally it's the ones that don't which use it for tedious stuff like turning a forum poster's textual comments into hyperlinks like on the Motley Fool's UK site.
Resrictions on what a programmer can make a browser do may be great for general Internet use, but is a pain if you are either on an intranet or using HTML as the user interface for a machine or kiosk. I had to uninstall Windows XP SP2 on the computer controlling a machine because it stopped Javascript being able to print a frame or window without first bringing up a print dialog box.
As (almost) everything in the IT field, people will always figure out a new way to overcome the blockings.
:(
So, if those are "official" pop-ups, the ideal would be to boycott the advertisers... Start a campaign against them... etc... Ok, it is naive and idealistic, but it is the only way they would feel for sure the pain on their side, too.
Unfortunately unrealistic. Oh well.
Yes, it did block the popups, but plastered across the front page:
"COMING TOMORROW: HOW SPYWARE WORKS!!"
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
True, 99% of people won't do that or just don't know they can do it. Someone should code an extension to take the url out of the javascript link and open it in the browser.
if you see PopUps in Firefox, please file them here : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25383 1 (no link, Bugzilla doesnt like /. links)
Go look at Google maps and Gmail. You can do some really good stuff now with Javascript, particularly as you can make a request back to the server with it and update part of the page without a reload.
Like any web tech it can be abused, but if you are a half decent developer the reason you are putting in JavaScript is to make the app a better experience for the user.
Maybe you want a world of basic pages and lots orf reloads, but most user seem not to.
My website uses pop-ups for viewing images (here's an example post; left-click the images to view them). I used to have regular links directly to the images, but felt it was actually more annoying that way. I, for one, prefer having a pop-up sized to exactly fit the image; when I'm in 1600x1200 resolution, viewing a 640x480 image, I appreciate it not taking up the entire screen, as a new tab or window would do. Anyway, do you agree I've used them legitimately, or do you think even this sort of thing should be done without pop-ups?
~CGameProgrammer( );
That will work, a little, in the short term, but not much.
You can't restrict yourself to a handful of websites your entire life. Sooner or later, you are going to visit a new site, and they are going to have thousands of pop-ups. Maybe it'll be a site you just visit once, or perhaps a site by someone who doesn't care how much they annoy you... Trying to convince everyone to restrain themselves from using the tools you've given them, is not a permanent solution to any problem.
You might as well try complaining to spammers who purposefully try to get around your spam filters...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That is ridiculous. Javascript can be abused, and that is a serious problem. I'd say Flash has the same problem.
But with the very nature of the internet, you must expect hostiles, and guard yourself against them. Making a whitelist of a handful of sites, and cutting yourself off from the rest of the internet is no solution.
Telnet could be abused, too, so it's been replaced...
HTML cannot be abused (not in any serious way). JPEGs cannot be abused. etc.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
the correct link is:3 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2538
javascript.enabled = false
My favourite way of blocking bullshit. If the site doesn't work this way I'll either bitch the webmaster for writing buggy pages or simply vote with my feet. In most cases don't even need to waste my precious brainpower in deciding what to boycott. If it doesn't work, it's probably broken -> neext please.
In August of last year, I made this demo, which shows how to easily popup a full-size page. This is done by submitting a form on onLoad, which targets a new frame. Works in Safari, but not in Firefox.
http://tom.lightheadsw.com/etc/safaripopup.html
Sig Nature
Frankly I don't think that the people who make these ads are trying to circumvent the protection methods in Firefox and Safari, since those two account for a very very small percentage of the browser market. The more likely explanation is that the advertisers have come up with a way to block the SP2-instigated IE popup blocker, since that was the bane of advertisers since it was added in the Summer. So, now we have a method of popups that is getting around the IE popup blocker, and because of these new methods, is probably getting around Firefox and Safari's blockers as well. The most obviously geeky explanation that FF And Saf are being targeted might not be the right one! They're still better browsers anyway though. Kind of sad to see I cant say "Hey, I can just turn on popup blocking to stop that ad.... oh wait...."
Go to the children's sites (porn...
Dude... that was a really bad choice of words. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"I can think of very few features that were so bad that users begged for ways to prevent the feature from being used... And said feature wasn't removed from the product!"
How about the inability to skip the initial ads on DVDs?
Nice try, but it doesn't defeat the new techniques.
Here's their demo page. With Firefox set up as you describe, their alternative layer ad shows up (wait about 10 seconds for it).
And its worse than the popup because the dismiss box in the upper right doesn't work.
I tried to explain that if pop-unders are the answer they are asking the wrong question but after a long evening of berating (I can be unrelenting in the face of idiocy) she eventually cracked and said "Well, we don't care because Dell just paid us £25,000 for a pop-under campaign".
This is immediately obvious if you're using anything other than WinXP with the default theme. I'm on OSX and it is very clearly not a window but some function of the website itself. I notice this quite often - "buttons" in certain banner ads or popups which are actually nothing more than images, and clearly so as the buttons look like Windows-style buttons.
I imagine Windows users could easily get this ease of identification for things which are not actual OS widgets by installing a custom theme, thus making anything with the default theme clearly identifiable as phoney.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Actually, you are wrong.
I am running Opera 8.0 with JS enabled and block unwanted popups set. The only popups I ever get are the ones I want and the onClick ones (such as at comics.com). This is good enough for me.
However, I got popups running FF 1.0 and the nightlies at these siets.
It catches all the events in the page, and then evaluates the element where the event took place and the nature of the event. If it is a click on a "A" element, then something happens. But the script offers actions on other events on other elements too.
The javascript that does that is http://js.eproof.com/1.js (rightclick/download link here)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17607 9
- go to about:config
- right-click and select New/Integer preference
- make a pref called "privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins"
- set the value 2
Now plugins are treated just like javascripts trying to open popups--they get blocked by the popup blocker. You have the option then to show the popup or to allow them for that site if you want.
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-6cee27178d-8e4f14
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-6cee27178d-8e4f14
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-6cee27178d-0f715a
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-6cee27178d-0f715a
but remember to do javascript.enabled = true first ...
I see absolutely nothing on that page, because falkag is in my AdBlock list. They have nothing useful to offer me.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
A week ago I had problems getting Firefox to close.
Turns out some site had opened a popup window offscreen. I tried to adblock the contents from - wonder what it was - 888.com or something.
Thank heavens that it opened offscreen. Otherwise I might have actually seen the popup. (What's the point of opening popups offscreen anyway? I just got spam that was titled "Do not read this" or something like that.)
Routing of packets, and resolution of DNS (for the non-geek reading this, and yes, I mean you: the system that converts host names (like www.ibm.com) to computer-friendly IP addresses (like 129.42.18.99)) are ultimately at the control of the user, not the sender.
So, yes: what I've done is create a list of domains for which I'm not interested in their cr*p (doubleclick and X10 were two of the first additions). And all traffic, thanks to my local DNS server (yeah, it sounds like I'm geeking out, but it's not that tough) goes to a local webserver. Just one of the Linux boxes on the LAN. It serves up a clear gif. Not even a proper "proxy" server, just some DNS hackery.
I had similar ways of combatting spyware servers and other problems, at a tech lab for the local Boys & Girls Club. Web filtering software for the obvious stuff. A list of ~60,000 domains which were denied access (culled from spammer lists and such). And for a few bad boys, firewall denial of all incoming and outgoing to known bad IPs. Staff boxes were a mass of viruses and spyware, but the systems 350 kids ran were clean, despite running MS WinXP.
While I'll freely admit that setting this up takes a wee bit of technical skills now, there's really no reason it should. And zero-configuration tools to provide similar capabilities to Joe & Jane Sixpack would be most excellent.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
If you think that the arms race is all about the users, you're sadly mistaken. See, the sad story of the Internet is one big arms race where everyone is trying to shaft _everyone_ else.
E.g., the webmasters trying to shaft the ad providers. (Which is why it started with one well paid ad per site, and ended up with wall-to-wall ad pages. Some fuckwits figured 'hey, if one ad pays this much, we'll get rich by showing 100 ads per page.' That, however, pushed the ad rate in a downwards spiral for everyone else.)
E.g., the ad providers trying to shaft the companies they're advertising for _and_ the webmasters. E.g., marketting people shafting the company they work for.
And one of the more masterful achievements of con-artists... err... marketting experts, was defining the "click" as a measure of success for an add. A campaign is successful if people click on that stuff, right? They got interested in the product, right?
Not necessarily. You give someone the idea that they're paid to generate clicks, regardless of whether the product sells or not, they'll actually work on just generating bogus clicks.
E.g., you end up with stuff like fake-UI popups. It doesn't matter whether you got interested in the product or not, or (for 99% of the people) you just clicked on the fake-UI by accident, then just closed the window and forgot about it. It just matters that they got a "click" to add to their total.
They don't actually intend to sell a product, which would for example work better if they did targetted advertising, than shotgun fake UI ads or "punch the monkey" tricks. They just want to tally up a high number of worthless clicks, which they can then use as a self-justifying bogus measure of "success".
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You know, childrens (people under 18) really often go to porn sites. Especially when they are over 15.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Ideally, these jerkwad marketers should realize that people using pop-up blockers do not want to see their ads
They have. But you see there are several kinds of people blocking pop-ups. One is the kind who hate them and would never buy anything from them. The second are people who are easily tempted by ads, which do impulse buys but wish they had more self-control, but failing that they install a ad/pop-up blocker. They don't want to see the ads because they would buy from them! Not to mention you have the average person, which is using ad/pop-up blockers simply to cut down the proverbial wall of ads to an acceptable level. The impressions he gets are from the ads that get through.
Both the latter cases sell your product. As for you, you're not a customer either way, so you don't matter to them. Ad/pop-up blockers are to most people a protection against themselves and to navigate the web without too much interference, not some holy crusade against seeing ads.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most pop up windows these days are let through by the browser if the user first clicks on a link or something to open the window. I've seen some web pages where they will capture the clicks for the entire document then open a pop up window.
the other day when I was browsing a sports site (www.eastsideboxing.com) to find out that my Mozilla 1.0 on XP was unable to stop the pop-ups at the site.
I guess it was time for the adware-hackers to catch up.
Norton Internet Security does exactly this, and has done for many years.
Switch off all the "intelligence" of the package, like auto-program recognition, and set the firewall to "paranoid plus" (only specific ports to specificcally permittied programs) and then set the defaults to non-script/activex/java, etc.
Works for all browsers, since it installs an invisible proxy (not as bad as it sounds - none of my *really* weird software conflicts with it, and software doesn't need to be proxy aware), and all traffic is rerouted through that, so it appears like a secure TCP-IP stack. Damn bulletproof, in my opinion.
Winds up the GF, who has to ask me to relax the security on a new site occasionally (twenty seconds click-work), but that's a small price to pay knowing that only sites that prove trustworthiness to me get to use flash/java/script/activex/cookies/popups.
I'm *not* affiliated with Symantec, and the only downside with NIS is their new fetish with key-based software activation, which means I'm looking for a similarly-accomplished alternative firewall package for this reason only. But I've not found it yet.
Univieristy class hosting and all goodies!
Oh, and I said use, not abuse :)
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
...or whatever he was called. His posts were highly amusing.
If, like me, you play first-person shooter games, you'll probably have the hand-eye coordination to 'head-shot' the close button before the window has barely rendered.
So yes, I'm seeing more popups lately, but any advertising content in said windows has barely 'spawned' before it's sent back to oblivion!
1. Create site with clever popups /.
2. Annoy someone enough to post on
3. Profit!!
Sorry, there's no "???" in there...
Seen a few cropping in on OS X 10.2.7 as well
Does anyone get any results from popup adds at all?
- 1) Be able to block javascripts by site or origin versus globally (the current setting)
- 2) Be able to block certain javascript commands
- 3) Be able to add to the javascript commands that are blockable
This way, should one site be irritating but still have good content, the user could still go there and benefit, but filter out the bad stuff. So I guess what I'm suggesting are "Javascript Filters".hmmm, didn't work for me, waited about 2 minuts for something to happen, and it just left a blank page, but I do have an entry in my adblock that reads: falkag
Sometimes people just have to learn and adapt to change, it is one of the requirements of being a living thing.
Exactly.. this is the way to approach things. Code as though you don't know what JavaScript is. Give users submit buttons, have your links load actual pages, etc. Then if you feel you want to make it behave a little differently, layer JavaScript onto that. Manipulate the DOM, hide things, display things, use event hooks like onclick to override link anchors, etc.
Put a small amount of thought into it, and you CAN have a web site that does not REQUIRE javascript.
Nuke anything (second link down for the XPI) also comes in handy for those times when you couldn't be arsed to turn off javascript, but some jackass has plastered a big, annoying floating javascript ad over the page you want to read.
One right-click > remove this object later, and you're good to go.
while popups are a pain in the rear, i hate the dhtml/css techniques that place an ad anywhere inside my open window of the browser....
:) if someone makes a popup for that i shake his/ger hand :)
while the popup usually have a real wm (window manager) created border, these suckers can have a fake border that can open windows, post forms, do whatever they are programmed to do, when you just try to click the close button...
good news is that usually they mimic windows borders, so the just do not really fit into my gnome without saying "i am fake"
did i mention that these sometimes just make a mess in other browsers since lame webmasters only test them in IE ?
use links/lynx on the other hand
You are ascribing intelligent design to the blind watchmaker of economics. The "ad industry" is roughly as unified as "the American People". Some of them are intelligent, thoughtful, creative, long-sighted individuals. Some want a fast buck no matter what happens five years from now. Guess which group is running pop-unders? And guess how the other group within the industry feels about that?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I read "The Times" a lot, and also visit google.
The most annoying advert to me is HSBC who absolutely insist on having pop-up adverts that obscure the text of the article. So long as they (or any other company) do this, I will never open a bank account with them. Similarly for software and hardware vendors.
Yes, I can block these popups can be disabled javascript, only to have the annoying frustation of being unable to visit other websites (such as google) because they insist on having javascript running.
Having per-site javascript controls would be a good idea, but advertisers would probably find a way of randomising the IP addresses/domain names.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I would definately rather pay an extra $5 or whatever for a product if I believe I'm buying it form a business that's more honest.
I refuse to buy from a company that uses spam tactics to get sales.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I recently visited your web site at falkag.com looking for information on the British edition of the new Harry Potter novel, and found the site was obscured by an ugly pop up window advertising a "Free* Laptop Computer"
I was disturbed to see that you had either stopped to the use of pop-up windows to finance the site, or had been hacked by some unscrupulous individual.
I'm writing to let you know that I will not be returning to your site until such time as the annoying, and invasive pop-up windows have been removed.
I have nothing against advertisements on web sites, as I am well aware that the content needs to be financed somehow, but I've always found text ads to be far less invasive. I've never bought NAYTHING from a pop-up ad, but I've made a number of purchases through text ads that I found on sites.
The bottom line is, I actively avoid companies that advertise through pop-up ads. For example, pop-up ads are the reason I will never buy use the travel services of Orbitz.com
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Doesn't pop up for me at all ..
You did say that you tweaked your browser to automatically generate tabs instead of windows - so maybe thats why you get them with Firefox.
I don't have that tweak - so every time I want to link to something I right click "open in new tab" and no popups - none
The snopes website has tons of pop ups when you normally click on stuff
I would undo your reghack
Good luck and thanks for the reply
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
You can buy some DVD players that allow you to skip the 'unskippable' ads, so I guess at least some manufacturers responded appropriately to their customer's outrage.
I was having my car fixed last week and used the free internet access available to fill the time.
As they only had IE on the machine (the only icon on the start menu) I had to use it.
I went to Wired.com and was amazingly pissed to see this stupid great PDA appear over the text I was reading.
It had an "X" to make it go away, but I came home and kissed the AdBlock text in my Firefox status bar as soon I could.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Without a shotgun. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Apparently you don't support any software products. Users try stuff simply to try it. I attempt to aleviate any querystring hacking so I can know when someone is maliciously trying to gain access to other parts of the system they shouldn't see. If they can see the location bar I don't know if it's a user just screwing around or someone trying to hack the system. If you hide the location you know it takes a bit more knowledge to attempt querystring hacking (not much but my for the users of my systems it is beyond their knowledge base).
By default, scripting is turned off for all sites.
To allow it, you have to add that site to a white list.
The same way software installation works on FireFox.
A long, long time ago (in a galaxy far away) medieval craftsmen were discovering that it pays off to make plans for a longer time. Build up trust and reputation. A smithy for example was inherited for generations, was not just something for a quick scam-and-run scheme.
Some time later the same thing dawned upon merchants too.
Now fast forward to the 20'th century and operating on "internet time". Which brought us a lot of benefits, no doubt. All that intensified, accelerated, cut-throat competition sure helped drive the prices down.
But the reverse side of the coin is that all that long term planning somehow got lost. Business plans are made for a quarter, at most for one fiscal year. Sometimes even less than that: they just have to look good until the IPO or the next stockholder meeting.
Whole decisions are made not even to cause revenue _now_ (at the expense of a long term disaster), but merely to please stockholders at all costs. And if you thought that PHBs are short sighted, the investors give a new meaning to that word.
Investors don't even really care if you have a product or a plan. The stock market isn't about who has a business plan or a product. It's about (hopefully) buying low and selling high. That's all. The stocks worth buying are those who promise to rise in value in the next couple of weeks. The ones worth dumping are those who don't. Holding onto shares in someone who has a solid product and income but doesn't grow, doesn't bring you much. The whole game is about guessing what the other non-business lemmings will do with their shares. I.e., ultimately if the company's short term hype is hype enough.
And a lot of companies play that game, instead of actual planning.
E.g., I see companies taking knee-jerk reactions like firing everyone in sight at the slightest downturn, just because that always pleases investors... even if the company has a huge back-order and its problem wasn't lack of orders, but lack of ability to make that stuff fast enough. Is that stupid, or is that stupid?
E.g., technology companies firing their entire R&D stuff because it pleases investors. Sure, until the next moore's cycle comes by and just selling the old stuff doesn't really work any more. Oops, it was a long term suicide to please the investors in the short term.
The epitome of this short-sightedness was the dot-com bubble. I've actually worked for a dot-com whose _only_ business plan could be summed up as "people will give us a ton of money at the IPO".
Basically: Sacrificing long term goals to look good in the short run is actually expected. Cooking the goose now is what keeps the investors happy. "Our new pop-up-under-through-and-sideways technology has resulted in a 10% increase in advertising income in the last month" is the stuff that makes people buy your shares. "We chose not to alienate people, and slowly, gently build up a honest brand name instead" is what makes them sell your shares: doesn't promise any spectacular growth in the next weeks or months.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Really? I was under the impression that sort of thing got you your CSS license pulled.
I guess that explains why there's been such a clamour for a plain-HTML version of GMail, that it's in GMail's "future features" list.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
try http://www.giveboobs.com/ - it still produces a pop-up even if you do all those things!
Earthlink used to have a plain-HTML webmail interface. It had all the usual features, it worked in any browser, and it was FAST, even on dialup (especially since one could forego loading images and still use it easily enough).
A couple years ago, Earthlink replaced it with a javascript-driven webmail interface. It has the same features, but now it only works in relatively new browsers, and it's slow as molasses (even for users on broadband; on dialup, it's so slow it's almost unusable).
Despite an avalanche of complaints (and zero praise) -- primarily about how SLOW it became -- ELN kept the new interface. Why? Turns out it was a fairly expensive purchased interface (somewhere I saw a list price of $10,000 for minimal users, so I'm sure it's more for millions of users), and by damn we're not going to let that investment go to waste, no matter how much the users hate it!
I think the advertising industry, and their clients (remember, companies, NOT users, are their clients!), are in the same boat. By damn we've invested millions in these "advances" in ad delivery, and the user is going to watch our ads like it or not!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If I can't see the location bar, I *assume* that YOU are trying to fuck with my browser, probably in a malicious way.
And if "querystring hacking" is enough to get into sensitive parts of your server, you need better security on your end anyway.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The sooner, the better. If advertisers want a platform to push ads, they can buy TV time. The Internet has turned into a den of thieves and it's time for the temple to be cleared.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Being able to pop up windows means you can make more powerful applications. It's not unfortunate that the browser has the potential to pop up windows. It's unfortunate that it was so poorly implemented that any old site can go ahead and do it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
JPEGs can be abused if you are using an unpatched version of Windows...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Have you noticed that OPEC *actively* tries to push prices back down to their target range?
.
NOthing altruistic there; it's just that if the price stays high, research on alternative fuels and conservation gets more attarctive.
ANd then there's the Disney channel. It doesn't have commercials. It's a 24 hour informercial for the Disney empire, interrupted occasionally by programming . .
hawk
Now if you could just get goodle to provide adsense that didn't require it . . .
dochawk.org (at least the main pages) complies with strict 4.01--right until I let google's ads back on. Then the validators go just plain nuts, and javascript rears its ugly head.
hawk
people are bothering to block the google and other text ads.
.
My problem has never been with the advertising itself, but the way those damned flashing ones are distracting and otherwise annoying. OK, and far enough back, I saw relatively up-to-date machiens brought to their knees attempting to render all the flashing, but that's been a while.
I'm pretty sure that I've never blocked an ad just for existing. But blink at me . .
hawk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have seen a number of sites that change the contents of one dropdown based on your selection in another. I suppose each change could reload the page like .net, but that is anoying.
It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
So you think copy protection and DRM are good things, since trying to convince everyone to restrain themselves from using the tools they've been given (disc burners, digital storage, computers), is not a permanent solution to the problem of copyright infringement?
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
> there are good reasons for pop-ups in an application context
I have two very solid answers to this. 1: Web pages are not applications.
2: There are also very good reasons for NO pop-ups in an application context.
I don't want my word processing application popping up extra windows while
I am editing a document. Emacs somehow manages to do EVERYTHING (and, if you
know anything about Emacs, you know that I do mean everything) without ever
popping up an extra window, unless the user specifically chooses the New
Window command from the file menu (or otherwise executes the lisp command
it's bound to.) This is good user-interface design. Popping up tons of
extra windows and dialog boxes and junk is *poor* UI design.
But I like reason 1 best: web pages are not applications. The web browser
is the application. The web page is data.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
That is known as an exploit, and is a result of buggy software. Javascript annoyances are not the results of bad software, poor implimentations, etc., they are the result of it's designed functionality. There's a huge difference there.
No ammount of bug-fixes to the code are going to get rid of javascript annoyances.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
PUDs = Pop-Up aDs and I guess those who see them as harmless either: a) don't surf anything outside of wholesome norms, b) work for advertisers nik!
Actually cars DO contain a bomb. It's called the gas tank. Extensive steps have been taken to try to prevent explosions of the fuel tank in a wide range of circumstances.
The point is that all technology can fail, sometimes disastrously, but we can develop other technologies to make that less likely.
With the kind of accounts that HSBC operates, they won't miss us one bit. This is a giant, worldwide corporate bank that's just trying to snag few "personal" accounts as well, but believe me, they don't need us. So they will continue to attempt to break into your browser. I consider them as bad as Citibank. They took over one of our national banks here, and the customer service went to hell real quick(not that it was ever very good.). Unless you have 50 gazillion rubles in there, it's a complete waste of time to complain about it.
What?
I have found i need Pith Helmet for safari to keep things
blocked. Works well. I am still using the last free version, but there is a shareware version supposedly the does even more...
-Jim
Moreover, the popups on my linux don't appear anywhere on screen, so to kill them, I must alt+tab and ctrl+w.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Since those only poison that particular tab, I just close it. The only reason I put up with popup ads in the first place is that I don't notice them.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Having per-site javascript controls would be a good idea, but advertisers would probably find a way of randomising the IP addresses/domain names.
OmniWeb has that. It's really useful. Per-site prefs on everything too. I set the popup blocker to block all on sitepoint.com, 'cos they manage to sneak one in, but only on unrequested windows for the web at large.
People know I installed it specifically to keep the shops on the outside and me on the inside, but they knock on it anyway to sell me stuff.
I use my spy-hole to screen, and since I started answering the door stark naked, the sales people have become less frequent.
I do get more jehovas witnesses now though, scarey that.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
no, it's unfortunate that it can be done without user interaction.