Slashdot Mirror
Unwanted Popups Boosting Web Traffic
Most of us have experienced popups used for advertising. Now, some adware companies and advertiser networks are using popups (mostly from programs that users did not want installed) to directly boost traffic numbers for their customer Web sites. Net rating and measurement companies try to detect and discount such inflated traffic numbers, with mixed success.
What are these "popups" of what you speak, please? /firefox
Your stock values may be infected with SPYWARE!
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
CenterNetworks reported this very early this morning...
Entrepreneur.com's traffic dropped by 5 million when they stopped their popunder campaign. Pretty sad...
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
or take what you paid for. I use Linux myself, but feel free to get a Mac and experience less of these spyware just the same. It is really pointless to use Windows, or rather to use Windows as a non Windows expert and then complain about such.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Read the summary again, it clearly says:
...meaning spyware, adware, viruses, trojans etc. It has nothing to do with your choice of browser.
mostly from programs that users did not want installed
There's no honor amongst thieves. I just wish something more could be done to screw these companies that fund spammers and malware advertisers, like law enforcement doing its job or something. Is paying someone to do something illegal also illegal? For example, it's illegal to hire a hitman.
I myself am a Linux user. When I'm talking to someone about technology, in person, I inevitably shift the conversation towards F/OSS. But, am I the only geek getting just a little bit tired of reading these "you wouldn't have these problems if you just used Linux" posts? This is Slashdot. We know. I promise.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
What happens when one uses pop-blocker which kills the pop-up window? Is that a hit? I assume the pop-blocker kills the window before a connection is established to the target server?
--Ram
"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." --Sun Tzu, in The Art of War.
Of course saying that, I doubt very much that even if Linux had a user base as large as the one Microsoft currently enjoys that the problem would be of the same scale, primarily because as a Linux user, even as a totally novice user, you can get all of your software from direct from whoever provided the distribution you are using, and it becomes less likely that you would want to install some random screen saver or other application that you find on the web.
Moreover it is considerably harder if not impossible to have a browser install software without user intervention under Linux. Furthermore I have so far never seen, and would find it difficult to see how an application could be installed under Linux that is as persistent as it is under Windows.
So I guess what I am saying is that the argument that Linux would be as badly effected by Viruses, Spyware and Malware if it were as prevalent as windows is simply not true, as the two operating systems, from a user perspective are not very alike. Not to mention the fact that Linux IS more secure, not just because of its relative obscurity but also because of the security measures in place within the OS. None of which will protect the OS if the user really wants to hose his or her machine. It does make that hosing more diffucult, and considerably reduces if not eliminates the threats posed by automated attacks similar to those seen agains Windows machines.
Yes, there's a large assumption by a bunch of people that Linux (or Mac OS X or FreeBSD or NetBSD) is 'perfectly secure', and yes, I agree with you that they are dead flat wrong.
However, there's a large assumption by a bunch of people that if Linux were more popular, we'd see a lot more spyware, trojans, and viruses (oh my!) for Linux.
While this is a true in a relative way, it doesn't take much to be 'a lot more' for Linux. Even with just half a dozen, you'd have 'a lot more'.
However, it's important to note that no matter the popularity of Linux, there is no way it would ever have the depth or prervasiveness of malware problems present on the Windows platform. If anyone who actually knows anything about the operating system architecture and security of both the Linux and Windows platforms in depth wants to debate this point with me seriously, I welcome them. Assuming that spammers would have just as much luck with Linux or ther UNIXes as with Windows is just sheer lunacy.
My blog
Wouldn't it be much smarter if these adware companies let their malware fetch the popup file (pretending to be any popular web browser) and not display it to the user? Most users would never notice the additional network traffic and, not having seen a sudden popup, would have little incentive to go hunting for the spyware.
The current model for advertising costs is just wrong! The pricing structure needs to be one that doesn't inspire fraudulent activity. Print, radio and television advertisers cite circulation and ratings numbers. Web advertisers should cite some other "popularity" measure, but not necessarily one that inspires fraud. Google, for example, might be one such measure, but really, it should never be so precise as in number of hits. I think it should be something based essentially on the site's demographic and estimated audience as determined by some neutral third party. It'd be like the Neilson ratings in its own way. And let these third parties come up with their own trustworthy measurements and may the market gravitate to the best of those ratings companies.
In this way, we would lose a great deal of fraud on the web simply because there will be lost incentive to have it.
I'm surprised that it took this long for advertisers to figure out that popunders/popups increase traffic. Back around 2000 when I was working for dot-coms, the ad-revenue based groups lived and died by traffic ratings (unique page impressions, etc) like Jupiter Media Metrics. When popunders started to reach critical mass, x10.com was pushed from nowhere into the top 5 -- overnight. I'm sure it cost them a pretty penny, but the result was evident over 6 years ago.
Let's hope that advertisers take another 6 years to catch onto the next big thing.
-Turkey
One way to screw spammers would be for everyone to click on their links, then not buy anything. Spammers are paid by click-through counts. If companies start getting a lot of false click-throughs that they have to pay for, they'll soon either lower what they pay, or use other methods of bringing traffic to their sites. Lowered pay hurts the spammers when everyone then stops clicking through. The general concept is that if you can't ignore them, then bury them instead.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If Jane Sixpack wants those bouncy smileys for her email, and the "official distribution channel" doesn't provide them, she will download them from a random website and install them, and if installing them requires the root password, then the root password it will get.
The typical Windows user knows not to open random email attachments and not to execute software downloaded from random websites, but the "need" for smileys and other flashy-flashies trumps any security education.
The problem is not the OS, it's the user. And I'd rather those users keep away from Linux.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I personally find both NoScript and AdBlock work well in Firefox. Now, I'm not against ads, but if they persist in being NOISY, MOVING, obnoxious ads I don't just kill them, I kill the entire subsite that launces them.
Want ads? Then stop popping up and stop full motion video with sound.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How ironic that this story appeared today.
Just last night, I was considering submitting a Ask Slashdot question on how other users deal with otherwise trustworthy sites that serve obtrusive popup/under ads. For example Merriam Webster's dictionary pages http://www.m-w.com/ which I was directed to following a link in a ./ post. But I figured....popups? So 2001. Why bother the friendly folks with such a ancient topic?
For those thinking I don't know how to manage my unwanted ad exposure, keep in mind I am running Firefox 2.0 with Pop-up blocking; typically a solid solution. The MW website, however, delivered 2 ads that broke past FF's utility. It left me with my old tactic: A good-old-fashioned "You just lost a customer" email. I have a text template to make the process quicker, so here's last nights email to the House of Definitions:
To Whom it may concern:
Please be advised that I will no longer be visiting your website nor advising it to my children or students. I visited your website today and was confronted with not one, but 2 popup ads on the definitions result page. One led me directly to http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ and the other was a kmart ad served by tribalfusion. Bear in mind that I use the Mozilla Firefox browser with Popup blocking active, and your website contains malicious code that defeats the pop-up window feature.
The computer I use and the programs that I run belong to me, not to you. I have no issues with your Privacy Policy, and your cookie policy. I simply request that you communicate with your third-party providers to prevent them from displaying code on your website that hijacks your customer's browser in this manner. While you are not responsible for the advertising content in said ads, you are reponsible for the user experience when visiting your site. At the present, it is not an enjoyable experience for someone who does not wish to be deluged in advertising. In addition, by continuing to host code which overrides a core browser component makes your site a possible vector for virus/malware transmission, should either your server or the servers of one of your advertisers ever be compromised.
I realize that advertising income supports your website, and more importantly your bottom line. The days when your core business was selling hardback dictionaries are over, and business models change.
However, upon the visit to your page, I am confronted with 8 total ads; the two popup/popunder ads mentioned previously, one for Hostgator, 2 Google ads for a Scooby-Doo DVD, one large graphical ad for Qwest, and two tolerable text links to your affiliate partners. All I wanted was a definition...not a great deal on DSL service!
As before, I will no longer be visiting or recommending your website or your products. There are other sources for the information you provide. In order for me to return, simple changes in your advertising strategy are requested, including the removal of popup/popunder advertising.
Sincerely,
Terry Hall
We shall see what kind of response I get. The message has worked in the past with some smaller sites, including my local bank's website. Why they needed pop-ups for revenue, I'll never know.
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
The fact that you probably had to set all of that up specifically rather than it coming as standard is probably significant.
var atags = document.getElementsByName("a");
for(current=atags.item(0); current; current=current.nextSibling)
current.onclick = open_nasty_popup();
function open_nasty_popup() {...}
</scrip>
the above code will bypass most (if not any) popup blocker. On every a tag (link) in the page, an onclick handler is added to the link. popup blocker block popups which are opened without user interaction. because a click is a user interaction, popup blocker won't normally stop such windows from opening (and that's good so, because many web applications use oclick to open additional windows).
This is what I have observed since FF shipped. There might be nastier ways in the meanwhile.
Cheers,
-S