Slashdot Mirror
Why Your Pop-Up Blocker Doesn't Work Anymore
An anonymous reader writes "If you've noticed that pop-up ad windows seem to have made an unwelcome return into your life, it's because they're not using the same easily blockable technology as before. The Adimpact system uses DHTML to annoy you, and there's no immediate prospect of a solution."
Adblock plus, problem solved!
What popups?
This mostly popup free browsing experience brought to you by the makers of Firefox and NoScript.
I use Firefox with the AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and FlashBlock add-ons installed. I haven't noticed any pop-up ads.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
... are like free endorsements for Firefox + adblock plus + NoScript + ... some other extensions.
The more they keep annoying users, the more popular the solution becomes.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Use flash blocker.
Also Opera has a facility to easily block a feed. Right click, click on the offending item, click done. you're done.
How many sources does this company have? Unless they have a lot, their adds are gone.
I don't know if FF has this or not ...
FYI, I've yet to find one of these which I suspect is because in addition to running AdBlock Plus, I also regularly use NoScript. The combination of the two swats 99% of ads of all kinds, and completely kills any popups unless I specifically enable them on a site.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
It's in this (useful, but long) one:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Check out http://dhtmlpopups.webarticles.org/ for a quick set of examples of these.
It looks like a bit of experimentation could yeild a reasonably reliable greasemonkey script to kill these when not click initated.
Spyder
I've been using a hosts file since around 2003. It blocks out all those ads, popups, spyware,adware, stops alot of virii from calling home, you name it. I scan my computer about once a month, and I haven't had any of the 'serious outbreaks' of adware like all my friends. They all swear by their software programs to block it(ultimately, they always end up reformatting when they cant quite get rid of them all) but my solution uses no resources and doesn't require 'scanning' for them regularly.
I use it on my parent's computer and only update it once a year at Christmas. Even with only updating once a year they haven't gotten any adware/spyware yet, and it's been 3 years.
I highly recommend it. Give it a try, there's nothing to lose but the crapware.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Or install Firefox and the Flashblock extension, which blocks ALL Flash content until explicitly allowed (which can either be once or always for a particular site). Which is better than AdBlock's version, that lets you block Flash but makes you explicitly block rather than blanket-block. (Blanket-block is better because 90% or more of Flash content encountered is ads.)
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
The firefox noscript extension doesn't permanently block javascript - it informs you when a site is trying to use javascript and gives you the choice to allow it temporarily or trust it completely.
It is actually quite interesting to see the number of cross site scripts that are called in lots of websites. So you have complete control over that. It is not flat blocking it out...
Why was he moderated "FlameBait?"
I think we need more meta-moderation, and people that get unmodded ought to get fewer mod privileges (if that's not already how it works). Unbelievable.
Anyway, I don't disable it... what annoys me is every few days there's an "update" whose sole purpose, IMO, is to keep NoScript at the top of the popularity list, and then when you do upgrade, it automatically loads the NoScript page in Firefox when it finally starts up. I often just click to skip installing the upgrade, but that gets tedious, too.
I very rarely encounter pages where it's not obvious which script I need to allow, although it certainly does happen.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Or install Firefox and the Flashblock extension
No kidding... I was thinking "what popups?" when I read this. I run noscript, but same difference.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Go to your /etc/hosts file. (sample location: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\etc\HOSTS )
Open it in notepad (or other basic text editor like EditPlus)
Under the line "127.0.0.1 localhost" add your own line that will be
127.0.0.1 porn.spam.com
Basically each new line will start with 127.0.0.1 and then tab and include the place you are want to block.
Recommendation 1: Backup the file before editing it.
Recommendation 2: Go line and look for hosts files people have put available on the web. Copy it and save it. I once had a hosts file that was about 2 megs in size. Considering it is plain text that was a LOT of sites it blocked. It was my own little slice of heaven...though I had to becareful, it blocked sites that I enjoyed (e.g. Netflix).
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Well, for some of us it's not a case of not using Flash or Javascript, but rather *us* deciding when and where we choose to allow it. I'll happily put up with the occasional ill-loaded page requiring Javascript/Flash enabling and reload (click on noscript icon in the status area and click on the servers I wish to allow, or allow all temporarily), rather than have to put up with the hideous clutter and tracking all over the web.
I have Javascript whitelisted for a quite a number of sites I regularly visit who put it to good use. I can also put up with letting certain semi-trusted organisations have information on what I'm doing on the site as well.
Having NoScript is perfectly sensible - particularly when performing a search on Google for example, and visiting random websites who could not only have malicious Javascript code, but could indeed just have slow-loading broken code.
Most websites load a lot faster (no matter how fast your system/net connection) without having to wait for scripts to load from random third-party ad sites.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
FYI, I've yet to find one of these which I suspect is because in addition to running AdBlock Plus, I also regularly use NoScript.
Adblock is great for fine-grained filtering of sites. I use it fairly sparingly, since I maintain a large hosts file to kill traffic with any server I find to be suspect. NoScript works, but I just find it too intrusive to be my weapon of choice. But my combo kills nearly all traffic I don't want to see...
Actually these days NoScript has an option to automatically grant temporary permissions to the 2nd level domain. It works perfectly for your case, sites which require scripts to run, usually host them on the same domain as the pages, so temporary permission to the 2nd level domain does the trick for them. Any ad related contents they host are usually on different hosts than their own, so these get blocked by noscript conveniently. Win-Win
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Wouldn't it be better to use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1? The latter attempts to connect while the former doesn't bother.
No:
While you are correct that using localhost for 'ad diversion' would hit a locally running web server, but at least you'd could have a log of your results. Just thinking of it, but wouldn't it be cool to see your own personal pictures/content instead of ads?
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I can attest personally to the power and convenience of Flashblock. It's simply a great system.
Upon installation (and a restart), Flashblock will replace all, ALL, flash components on every page with an empty, but clearly outlined box where the flash applet would have been. In this way, over all page layout is unaffected during the block.
At the center of this empty block, Flashblock puts a recognizable stylized "F" icon, which when hovered over, turns into a standard "Play" symbol. Personally, I think it should always be a play symbol, but that's just nit picking. After this icon is clicked, the flash applet, and only THAT applet, loads and begins just as it would have insisted on doing when, or even before the page was finished loading.
No more crazy ads. No more loud and obnoxious audio content. No more flash-bomb pages, slowing the system to a crawl, and/or crashing firefox. Admittedly, the crash problem still exists, but now you risk it only at your own behest. Normal use of flash, e.g. Youtube, is almost completely unaffected, and IMHO even improved by flashblock. The web page is cleanly and gracefully separated from the flash content, as it always should have been.
Flashblock is the first extension I download on any new firefox install. I highly recommend it.
May the Maths Be with you!
How is NoScript instrusive? You set it to block by default, and if you hit a site that doesn't work correctly, test it with the "Temporarily allow..." option for all the relevant parts of the site, then you can whitelist it permanently if you wish. Kudos to your hosts file -- different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz. However, I just can't see how NoScript can be called intrusive by anyone.
Method of processing duck feet
To make NoScript less intrusive, try configuration options. For example, 'temp allow top-level sites by default' is good for seeing most of what you want, without seeing what you don't (ad content from another site). Of course, more risky for users blindly following pr0n links to sites where even the top level is dangerous.
But then again, I'm sure you don't do that, eh?
While we're on the subject, Redirect Remover is worth a look too...
You have to Cancel or Allow on every site...?
I use Windows Vista, you insensitive clod! I've clicked cancel or allow so many times I can do it in my sleep now.
Javascript IS basic functionality. Welcome to 1990.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
about:config -> noscript.firstRunRedirection -> set to false
Popups are why I hesitate to go to weather.com
If you're in the US, use weather.gov It's where weather.com and local broadcasters get their weather data from anyway.
No, they don't. Weather.com, the web presence of "The Weather Channel", has their own forecasters, and they're seldom as accurate as the NOAA. But at least they're not as bad as AccuWeather.com, which is one of the companies that sells forecasts to local TV stations.
weather.gov may not be a pretty site, but it rocks in terms of usability and accuracy of the data. And I already paid for it from my taxes!
John