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

[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

[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

[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)

"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.

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.

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)

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.

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: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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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?