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."
Unfortunately it would be an arms race of sorts, similar to virus definitions... requiring dom scripting to identify a particular class or id or attribute or some other unique element in the ad (possibly the image src which means it could piggy back on ad-blockers already in use)...
The idea is to use the DOM to walk back up from the unique Ad element to the containing div or divs, then turn them off or delete them.
Another way would be to identify the offending function in the script and set it to return false or something similar.
Someone could play around with greasemonkey or YUI anywhere and create a sample distribution...
I don't personally go to enough sites that do this to make the effort, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the class.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.
WE (as in users) don't need Javascript. I've been following the trends on more and more script code on websites for years now. If you really look at it most of the code is used to a) gather data about the user or b) display messages and ads to the user. There is a smaller category c) running useful code (like flash video players, online apps etc.).
The reality is that many companies base their revenue streams on these ad systems which include addthis, google-analytics and so forth. By simply blocking these you'll have a hassle free surfing experience but will have to occasionally activate some stuff to make your site work (which at times can be quite tedious finding out which one of the fifteen cryptic script hosters is responsible for the video player itself).
I sometimes worry if I deprive my sites of their ad revenue by blocking these shitty ads but then again I never voluntarily clicked, let alone bought something from, a banner or popup ad. As long as there are blinking, sound playing, window resizing, non-closable, code-executing messages that want to bum some attention I will block them. Firefox, Noscript. No more problems. I hate surfing on machines without those installed.
If no script is too restrictive for you,, (and it can very easily break sensitive transactions that port you from one domain to another,) then I suggest you also try yesscript. It's a blacklist script blocker rather than a whitelist.
I agree with this one. If you're so insensitive to your customer/reader base that you don't mind putting offensive ads into your content (Time.com I'm looking at you), then you don't get my business at all.
Why companies think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.. I have no idea.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Uh no. Try this URL http://www.adimpact.com/cgi-bin/webapp/nph-demo.cgi/000000A/http/slashdot.org/
they love Flash because they don't have to code the page differently for different browsers.
So instead they use Flash, which is -guaranteed- not to work in all browsers, especially mobile ones?
How is it not intrusive? I browse to a website I haven't been to before - something I do several times daily - and it doesn't work right unless I click that little S and allow it permission to run javascript.
That pretty much defines intruding on my experience.
I still use it though because I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't install it on my parents' computer.
Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
50's and 60's? As 4th graders in 1977 we collected cans by the side of the road to be melted down from all over town. I even found a set of baskets to bolt onto my bike - we had a magnet and on one side we would put the old steel cans and on the other side we'd put the new aluminum cans. Inevitably there'd be more aluminium cans as the summer wore on and we'd be upset because steel cans were worth a whole lot more than aluminum ones back then. You could also sometimes tell just by looking at the pull tab - this was before the pop top - they had different shapes. I earned a ton of money picking up cans to supplement my paper route.
Kids these days have no idea - my kids want an allowance for emptying the friggin' dishwasher and walking the dog. Sheesh. I know as parents we don't make it easy for them, hell I was roaming a 10 mile radius of suburbia at that time, and I hardly ever lose sight of my kids today.
Sorry. Can you please get off my lawn now?
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Of course he doesn't, and that is not meant as any slur against Klaus_1250. A very large group of /. readers belong to the "I won't follow adverts so blocking them is fine camp", you can try playing Devil's advocate all day but you're wasting your time.
Personally I've taken the view with the sites I manage that either a user is benefiting the site or not. In the case of adblocking users this means that I either think that referrals from them justify allowing them anyway, or as in most cases I block them.
I've had a couple of angry emails from users who were blocked for adblocking, but I just ignore them. I run sites as a hobby, and if someone visits my site it costs me money, if I put adverts up and a person doesn't want to view adverts then I don't want them using my bandwidth.
Why give impressions? Nobody is paid off impressions for one, and also it would confuse the accuracy of advertising.
Also plenty of people, like myself, do not want to see ads period. We are well past the generational concept from previous generations of "you can buy our eyeballs". Answer is, you can't. I don't care if it's an ad I would actually want to see. I want to browse the web to find what I want.
Only type of "ad" I accept is browsing somethingawful's forums unregistered where they explicitly say Adbot. Also accepted are "click here to view our ads" ideas. However "PLEASE LOOK AT OUR SIGN IN CAPS" as a banner, does not deserve my eyes at all.
The deceptiveness of advertising on the web does not make it more effective. It's the head fake, that gives people a reason to view things. 100% of ads could be taken off the web and many sites would do just fine. Even google and doubleclick have other ways to garner profits. This is something many websites haven't wrapped their heads around. People may be tolerant, but it's really a waste of cash/time.
Google could truly help people make their own sites more relevant in comparison to what meta tags show up,etc aka: website consulting. I bet they already do this anyway. Ads as a market is something many of people are just waiting for it to become obsolete.
Out of curiosity, how do you determine if someone is viewing your adverts? Do you host them yourself, or does your ad provider have some sort of service to let you know if someone is blocking ads?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Strawman after strawman, and complete lack of comprehension on your part as to the point.
The point, my arrogant friend, is that JavaScript is used for more than simply popping up advertisements. As a contractor, many of my clients wish to give their web pages more of an "application" feel to them. For the sorts of features they explicitly request, the vast majority of them require the use of, at minimum, JavaScript, if not some other plugin. As I'm not a fan of Flash or ActionScript, I focus most of my efforts on JavaScript. If I can get away with some sort of visual hoopajoop with CSS, believe me, I use CSS. JS is to be used minimally.
Your basic argument is that, because JavaScript is in some cases used for evil, no one should ever attempt to use it for any other purpose, much like knives, guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, roller coasters, sex, marriage, or brownies. My argument is that that makes you a fucking retard for not realizing that all of those can be used in a completely legitimate way if the time and the space require it.
I further went on to say that if the use of these bothers you so much, you can block them (in the case of JavaScript), or walk away (in the others). Neither I nor my customers care about that minimal loss when weighed against their perception of gain.
Now, if my client said "don't use JavaScript, Flash, Quicktime, and don't you dare write a single IE specific CSS hack - this has to be 100% standards compliant!", then believe me, I'd be fine with that too.
The point I'm making is that if JS is so offensive to you, block it. We don't fucking care. We're going to continue using it, and continue requiring it, and if you don't like it you can leave, because, as I reiterate, we don't fucking care.
If your site doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, your site is broken. Period, end of chapter.
I don't know about that. Ten years ago, when Javascript implementations were spotty, buggy, and at times incompatible, I'd probably agree. But nowadays I'd consider having a working Javascript implementation just about as important in browser selection as standards-compliant HTML and CSS support.
(On a side note, I'd also no longer consider a site that doesn't work properly without CSS to be broken. Lynx can bite me.)
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.