Floaters are the New Pop-Ups

windowpain writes "A prior Slashdot article discussed the ever-increasing ability of pop-up ads to break through adblocking software. Now the New York Times (registration required) is reporting that pop-ups are pooped out, replaced by those annoying "floaters" that are even more resistant to conventional pop-up blocking software. From the article: 'Not to be confused with pop-up ads, which open new windows and clutter virtual desktops, these floaters, or overlays, or popovers (no one can agree on a name), can evade the pop-up blockers that many Web browsers have incorporated. In the last year, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, which collects and analyzes data on Web advertising, the frequency of these ads has risen markedly, by almost 32 percent from December 2003 to December 2004, while pop-ups in that period declined by 41 percent.'"

Comments

Not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

With Mozilla/Firefox these new ads are actually not a problem. Just use a userContent.css file to block them.

For example, I found some that use divs with IDs, so I just added something like:

div#GF__p_0,
div#floatpop { display: none !important;}

And, poof, they're gone. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out what to block, but the Webdeveloper extension can help quite a bit.

Re:Not a problem

[danormsby]

Also not a problem with lynx.

Re:Not a problem

[suso]

Heh, isn't that the way it goes with almost all technology. New technologies cause new problems that would not be a problem on old technologies. Its as if we are moving in reverse rather than forward.

Re:Not a problem

[R.D.Olivaw]

There's alwasy some pricks trying to ruin the web for everyone else.

I hate pop-ups and floaters as much as the next guy but c'mon, you're on their website! It's not like they're sticking their ads on every website you visit withotut he site's approval. If you don't like their business model, do not visit the sites. simple.

Re:Not a problem

[shird]

Yeah, until they start using random names for the floats.

The solution is to not allow layered content like that to cover up the page in the actual browser core.

This is similar to blocking popups using a *popup.html* filter instead of actual logic in the browser to prevent windows from appearing unless the user has clicked the mouse and requested them.

Re:Not a problem

[buro9]

Not all adverts do have div ID's though, but thankfully we're still well within the realm of being able to use Adblock to nuke them.

The adverts are usually served up by third party advert servers and thus looking at the adblock list of blockable elements... just block all items that are not on the domain for the site you're looking at.

That takes care of 99% of floaters, popups, etc.

The real problem is the next stage of advert evolution, which will be when content providers still use third parties to sell and supply adverts, but start to act as proxies for the adverts.

When content providers are acting as proxies and adverts appear to come from the same domain and content management system as the content... then adverts will be VERY hard to block.

The prevalence of adblock is going to increasingly push companies towards such solutions.

They'll still need to monetise their sites, and whilst it used to be that they didn't care for a minority of people blocking adverts, when that is a fast growing minority and it's affecting their revenues... they will find ways around it.

Just as the DRM rules state that if you can see and hear it you can bypass DRM and copy it... maybe a rule should be created for adverts: If you can see or hear the content, then advertisers CAN find a way to make you see or hear advertisements.

Re:Not a problem

[arkanes]

It's a hard concept for advertisers to grasp, but annoying people doesn't work when they have the power to easily turn you off. A few years ago, pop up blocking was a pretty technical thing and you needed to be a geek to have it. Then it moved into the mainstream. Same will happen here. People don't bother to block adds which are unobtrusive and non-annoying. Use those, and all will be well.

Re:Not a problem

[JSBiff]

While I agree that it is kind of a band-aid approach, your approach doesn't work either. If you disallow divs to overlap any other content, then you have just disabled a lot of non-offending uses of dhtml. For example, drop down menus that don't use flash (really, I'd rather have dhtml menus than flash menus). Lots of different types of animation effects (like, for example, maybe a web-app would use a 'slide-out' notifier to alert you when you have new messages, like when using a web-forum with private messaging built in).

Some people use this in a highly annoying way, it's true. But the solution is NOT "to not allow layered content like that to cover up the page in the actual browser core." If you are going to do that, you might as well just turn off javascript, which most browsers will let you do, already.

Re:Not a problem

[spun]

Enough people don't want to turn off ads, or don't know how, to make this profitable. I've noticed that many ads on TV seem deliberately designed to irritate through stupidity and repetition. Obviously irritation as an advertising strategy actually works with enough people to make it profitable. Consider that many of the people who read slashdot are (or like to think they are) more intelligent than the average person. I don't think the attitude expressed here is indicative of the attitude of the average web-surfer. A poster further down says his users would happily double click on a land-mine just to see what happens. I think that is more indicative of the general attitude of the average web-surfer. As long as there are stupid people, advertisers will cater to them.

Obviously, what we need to do is get rid of all the stupid people. I suggest telling them there is a giant space goat coming to eat the planet and putting them all on some kind of space ark.

Re:Not a problem

[JSBiff]

Perhaps instead would be a way where you could hold ctrl and click a layer and it would disappear.

That is definitely a better solution. You still have to see the ad initially, but it at least returns control to the user. I'm all about user-control when it comes to the web. Control of your browser and your computer should rest with *you*, not some random, untrusted site on the public internet.

Re:Not a problem

[CoderBob]

One thing bothers me about your argument:

If you disallow divs to overlap any other content, then you have just disabled a lot of non-offending uses of dhtml. For example, drop down menus that don't use flash (really, I'd rather have dhtml menus than flash menus). Lots of different types of animation effects (like, for example, maybe a web-app would use a 'slide-out' notifier to alert you when you have new messages, like when using a web-forum with private messaging built in).

Why do we even need drop-down menus on websites? Whatever happened to decently laid out sites that didn't contact the server every 10 seconds to see if there was an update? Web-forums with private messages? Let them notify me of a new message when I request a new page. Real-time dynamic content does not belong in a browser window.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned here, but I don't see "the web" as something I want to turn into application software. Not over HTTP. Leave my HTTP alone, let me browse through information, maybe hit some server-side app here and there for quasi-dynamic content. Enough with the client-side stuff. The only thing I can even see running client side is a validation script that just checks to see values are entered into a form. Not that they are right (other than format, like ###-###-#### for a US phone #). Other than that, keep it on your damn server.

Re:Not a problem

[spun]

Perhaps you are right about that. One thing I've noticed though: creative, amusing or artful ads don't work on me. Oh, I admire the ad agency who made the ad, but it still won't make me buy the product or like the company placing the ad.

I like to think I'm a lot like many other people here. When making purchasing decisions, I decide what I want based on rational criteria such as price, features, customer service and so forth. I tell myself that none of the millions of ads I've seen in my life are shaping my decisions.

I remember reading a short SF story about consumerisation in the future. People are working ten hour days, six and seven days a week to buy all this useless crap that is specifically designed to break down in three months. Car tires, for instance, must match groove patterns in the roads (which are changed every few months) or the vibrations will destroy the tire and car. People spend all their free time figuring out deals in buying clubs. Finally, ad companies come up with these subliminal mind control antennas. The main character ends up stopping at the store for a carton of cigarettes (which he doesn't smoke) and putting them absentmindedly in the glove compartment with all the other unsmoked cartons of cigarettes.

Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?

Re:Not a problem

[TheWizardOfCheese]

One thing I've noticed though: creative, amusing or artful ads don't work on me.

That's what you think.

Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?

Now you are on the right track. However, there is no spooky, subliminal hypnosis involved. It's just that we are far more susceptible to advertising than we think. Companies advertise for only one reason: it works. New products have uncertain demand, but in established industries it is fairly easy to predict how sales will respond to advertising. Yet nobody thinks they are influenced by ads. Likewise, it is easy to prove that physically attractive political candidates have a material advantage over uglier ones, but while we may be willing to to believe that other voters could be so superficial, we all know that we ourselves are wiser ... don't we?

Floaters are not evil.

[FTL]

There's no problem with floaters, they are no more evil than with blinking text, bad colour schemes or any other number of ugly special effects. They are simply an attribute of the website. If you don't like them (I hate them), click the back button and go somewhere else.

The problem with popups is that clicking the back button was not enough, one had to clean up the mess -- sometimes a mess that would keep respawning itself. Floaters look superficially similar to popups, but floaters are completely contained within the window. That makes them just another (usually bad) design feature.

Re:Floaters are not evil.

[pete6677]

I'm not saying that these ads are evil, but I question the wisdom of forcing ads on people who have taken steps to block them. What does the advertiser expect to accomplish? If their site is struggling so much that the only way they can keep it online is by forcing obnoxious ads on people, the internet would be a better place without them. Make your ads relevant and not super annoying, and maybe people will actually be interested in them.

Re:Floaters are not evil.

[j0e_average]

No, they are not evil.

Actually, they indicate that you're getting enough fiber in your diet!

My own stool, sir, are perfect. They are gigantic, and have no more odour than a hot biscuit" Dr John Kellogg (Anthony Hopkins)

No Reg Link

[KaSkA101]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/technology/circu its/24popp.html?ex=1266987600&en=22bde7cc89dd70a5& ei=5090&partner=rssuserland No Registration Link

"Remove this object"

[sl8r]

There's a nice lil extension to firefox called "Remove this object" that gets rid of those stupid "floaters" (i call 'em div layers, only cos that's what they are).

Re:"Remove this object"

[erykjj]

Sorry, the link above should be this.

I wish...

[Quasar1999]

I wish that the pop-over ads would only pop-over when I hovered over them... a bunch of ads from Dell I've seen seem to do that... and I appreciate that... it sits there like a banner, and when I hover over it, it expands and does it's nice flash ad... but the ones that do it 5 seconds after the sight loads (car adverts on CNN anyone?) I really hate... it's annoying and ensures that I will never consider watching it...

A bit of courtesy from the advertisers and I am willing to watch it if it catches my fancy, but if they throw it in my face, they ain't getting anything but rage from me.

Raise your hands

[bigtallmofo]

How many internet marketers would, if the technology were available, opt to have a physical hand come out of someone's monitor and slap them in the face until they read your ad?

I just wonder where some marketers draw the line.

Even more annoying ...

[cablepokerface]

... are the 'in-between' pages with advertising. You are reading an article, want to go from page 2 to 3 and boom, you end up on a completely different page.

Who Clicks On These?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I believe I speak for many when I say
"Who the Hell actually clicks on all the popups,popovers,floaters,ads and logos anyway?"

I can safely say the only time I click on an ad when online, is when my mouse slips?
I suppose it must be like spam. The percentage of suckers is incredibly low, but if ads are 10% of internet content, then you'll get a few hits.
Still though, I mean, what kind of person goes around saying "Oh! I do want a cheaper morgage!!" *CLICK*. Do any slashdotters have some amusing tales of such perpetually clueless lusers in their domains?

Re:Who Clicks On These?

[Talsin]

I support a group of almost 100 20 something women that work in the advertising business doing spot radio buys. I can honestly say any of them would happily double click a landmine just to see what happens.

There is no sig

CSS + Javascript

[rdc_uk]

Ultimately, what is required is for the browser (whichever one) to control what elements of CSS and Javascript sites are allowed to use.

Ergo; the user can simply dissallow CSS allowing flying elements ("float"-ing is a different thing, you see).

There needs to be a definite shift from the web-site having "control" unless the browser is patched to snatch it back, towards the web-page being permitted to do its thing within certain boundaries (boundaries that the user is in control of).

The rush to provide "web applications" runs contary to this; web pages are DATA, not programs and the further we go from that state, the more invasive mal-intentioned pages can be (example; ActiveX)

Not effective anyway

[DrinkingIllini]

Don't these people look at any research, or are these just web developers with no actual marketing skills? Simple text based ads have been proven to be more effective than any form of internet advertisement, why do you think Google uses them?

Sollution.

[Tetsugaku-San]

Turn off Flash - I've never found a convincing argument to have it other than the odd well made animation - and these are few and far between, turning flash on and off should be a lot easier but aprt from that -it works.

Re:Sollution.

[DustMagnet]

I spent years looking for a way to turn off flash. Macromedia doesn't allow you to do it. If you don't install it, you get bugged constantly to install it. Then came Homestar Runner, so I need flash. Recently someone on Slashdot pointed out a Firefox extension called Flashblock. It's perfect. Replaces all flash with a clickable icon and you can easily whitelist a site from a right-click menu.

Re:Flash suppression

[cswiii]

I haven't had it installed lately because my adblock does a pretty good job of blocking flash that I don't want to see, but
flashblock is what I used to use... it blocks out flash until you click on it to view.

Who does this? Why do they do it?

[Mirk]

I just don't get it. What kind of moronic company would pay money to "advertise" its product by irritating the heck out of everyone who sees it? If there is a more cast-iron way of making me hate a product so much that I will never buy it, it's by having it get in my face when I am trying to read something.

These "floaters" remind me of that childish thing where someone leaps around thrusting their hands in front of your face going, "Not touching! Can't get mad!" Oh, yeah. That behaviour is really going to make me want to buy your product.

Since "floater" is (in England, anyway) slang for a turd that can't be flushed away, the name is at least appropriate.

Re:Hey!

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Would you watch a TV station that played its ads over the show, cutting in at random moments so you miss key dialogue? Me neither. There are ways to host ads on Web sites that don't annoy the hell out of the user."

It already happens. You're watching a TV show and suddenly a swirling logo appears in a corner and then an ad for another show on that network appears. And then during the closing credits, the network will break in with obnoxious promos that block out anything you can see or hear on screen.

Re:Hey!

[Neph]

Would you prefer to have everything like NYTimes.com instead?

Damn it all to hell, TEXT ADS! In a space on the side of the screen! Google figured this out years ago, how long is it going to take for the penny to drop with the rest of these bozos? How hard is it to understand that maximizing annoyances your potential customer base is not good for business?

Seriously. Why does this have to be so difficult? The fact that people are developping countermeasures to your advertising should be lighting a bulb, however dim, somewhere in your mind. What could it mean? Whatever could it mean?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Complain

[krgallagher]

Here is an email I sent Foxnews.com:

"I believe it would be in your companies best interest to institute a policy that your banner advertisments cannot make sounds unless a user is interacting with them.
You are currently running a banner add on your web site that is extremely anoying. It says "Swat the fly and get a free $250 gift certificate," and has a fly flying around and your mouse turns into a fly swatter when you mouse over it. The anoying thing is that it makes a buzzing sound even if you do not do anything.
Your web site auto refreshes at regular intervals. I usually leave my browser open on your site durig the day while I work and periodically check the headlines and read the articles. Imagine my surprise when, while I am working with my browser minimized, my computer suddenly begins to buzz. I use firefox for a browser, and usually have at least seven news sites open in tabs at once. It took me quite some time to find which site had an add that was playing the anoying buzzing sound.
Since I cannot prevent your site from auto refreshing, eventually that banner add will come back up. As a result, I am not going to be able to leave your site open today. That is a real shame because I relly enjoy your web site and read it daily. Unfortunately that annoying sound will drive me nuts and prevent me from getting my work accomplished.
Thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice and change your advertising policy."

This was their response:

"Thanks for writing. We've been deluged with complaints about this ad. It was served by a third party advertiser, and we're working to track it down and remove it. If it does crop up again in the future, please don't hesitate to email us right away."

I was really surprised at the response. I guess since they are a legitimate news site (gonna get flamed for that), they cannot afford to have their advertisers driving their readers away from the site. Still I sent a similar email to abcnews.com for a similar ad a couple of months ago and the response was the exact oposite. I did not save the email but they basically told me to screw myself.

Re:Complain

[barzok]

The biggest annoyance isn't even the ad - it's Flash Player. Flash player will NOT let you disable *any* flash animation that is embedded in a webpage. *Some* flash animations seem to allow you to stop them (by right-clicking, and toggling the 'Play' menu option), but it appears to be something that webpages can disable. This is something that has always made me royally angry with Macromedia. It's *my* computer, I should have the final control over it, not the person embedding flash content on the page. I should *always* have the option of stopping the flash animation.

I would just get rid of flash, but unfortunately, too many sites use it for critical parts of their webpages. *sigh*.

Get the Flashblock extension for FireFox/Mozilla. It'll let you choose which Flash animations to play, and which sit there idle.

AdBlock = easier

[CdBee]

Adblock can also kill the floater by preventing it loading. (I prefer "floater" as its alternative meaning in British is that of a turd in water)

games too

[norkakn]

I wonder what it would be like if we worked on stories instead of flashy graphics in games. Would it be better to have a text based game where all the characters had personalities and could hold a conversation? Or is it better having lots of dumb things that don't talk to shoot at?

Effective marketting through pain

[erroneus]

I believe it would be a natural extension of today's marketting techniques to use forms of pain and torture as a means of convincing people to buy your products and services. Clearly, being nice and friendly doesn't work any longer.

Let's just glance at the trends to see where they are going. With TV, they started with commercial spots which were actually convenient because if gave you the opportunity to get up and get a drink, make a sandwich or go use the bathroom. But lately, with the excessive amounts of commercials you have time to do all three of those things. Now they are corrupting our entertainment with product placement within the entertainment itself. Annoying...but livable since they have only the ability to make sounds and video so it kind of limits what they can do. (Though I make predictions that they will begin adding ear-drum-peircing tones to the beginning and end of each commercial to take advantage of the new pain marketting techniques.)

The same generally applies to radio where the commercial air time obviously swarfs the amount of entertainment air time. But again, ear-drum shattering tones, not unlike the Emergency Broacast System tests, will mark the beginnings and ends of advertisments on the radio.

With computers and internet, we have suffered greatly from the creative genius of marketters who clearly illustrate they have no moral boundaries. They spam us, we block them, they find ways around the blocks and keep spamming. Now what marketting genius thinks it is a good idea to skirt what amounts to security measures in order to get your advertisment through? In some places it's a criminal offense to ignore a "No Soliciting" sign. How about climing over a security fence in order to place a handbill on your door? Is it okay? Or what about picking the lock of your back door (a clear invitation since you have a back door, it must mean you want someone to come in through it right?) in order to stick something on your refridgerator (and then count all the items in your food storage to see what you've been eating and buying)? Would this be acceptable? No, guess not. Marketters would think it's equally ridiculous...or would they..? (Do you think I just gave them a bad idea? D'oh!)

I have proposed this idea in the past and I believe I got some support for the idea at the time but now I'm almost ready to start the push myself. Let's make a "mark" in the minds of the consumers out there.

I think we should hire some people to go around and beat up random strangers on the street. The advertising comes in when you script the ass-kickin' with commercial messages. Timing is crucial. For example, if I were advertising Viagra, a kick in the crotch should happen at exactly the moment the product name is mentioned. This works directly as the word "Viagra" will be stuck in the mind of the recipient for a LONG LONG time. And indirectly, as you see people holding their damaged "goods" and you ask them what happened, they can simply answer "Viagra" and the message will be clear.

I have considered many ways in which pain would be an effective marketting tool and the scenario above is just one example.

Popups are for wimps.

The new ESTP protocol!

[cpghost]

[...] I'd very much like to see an over-the-Internet face-slapping technology developed.

Easy, if you replace face-slapping with electro-shocking.

• Sell new keyboards and mice that deliver electric shocks of varying intensity (ever seen Never Say Never Again?).
• Have the W3C implement the new ESTP protocol (Electric Shock Transport Protocol) specification and associated (XML-like?) tags.
• Marketers can now "shock" users that don't click on the ads.
• ...
• Profit!

If you thought that you could get away with using rubber gloves, you are dead wrong: this is a circumvention, and you'll be hit by the DMCA!

The next level of blocking

[Animats]

Browsers need some work to deal with this. Firefox has some real opportunities here.

First, we need to get Flash under user control. This may require implementing an open-source Flash player, or beating hard on Macromedia. Flash animations need to respond to a "block all images from this site" right-click. All animations should come up static, dimmed, and silent, requiring user action to activate them. This keeps the annoyance level down.

Then we need to make page ownership hierarchical. If a page opens another window, the new window is considered a child of the parent window. When the parent window closes, so must the child.

Further, child windows should be restricted to the area of the parent window. They must be in front of the parent, and they must have some minimal overlap. (Restricting them to the parent window frame is probably too restrictive, but requiring some overlap means they can't move freely around the screen.)