Slashdot Mirror


Google Studies How Bad Interstitials Are On Mobile

An anonymous reader writes: A Google study of their own Google+ site and app found that 69% of visitors abandoned the page when presented with the app interstitial. Google said it was getting rid of them and asked others to do the same. TechCrunch reports: "It's worth noting that Google's study was small scale, since the company was only looking at how an interstitial promoting the Google+ social service native app performed (and we don't know how many people it surveyed). It may very well be the case that visitors really didn't want the Google+ app specifically — and that Google+ itself is skewing the data. (Sadly Google is not offering comparative stats with, say, the Gmail app interstitial, so we can but speculate.)"

259 comments

  1. interstitial? by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wikipedia tells me that interstitial is short for Interstitial cystitis or bladder pain syndrome.

    That too would get me to abandon the website.

    1. Re: interstitial? by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Your google-fu is weak. It was the SECOND link when you search "Interstitial"

    2. Re: interstitial? by konohitowa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your sense of humor is even weaker than his google-fu.

    3. Re: interstitial? by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you pronounce that google-foo or google-eff-yoo?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re: interstitial? by quenda · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I read this morning that these interstitials are what wiped out the wooly mammoth.
      http://www.livescience.com/516...

    5. Re:Interstitial? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It was to describe an intermediate step between the user and the content and became popular in the 90s when people first introduced the "enter your birthday" pages or the "are you over 18?" pages before going to porn pages.

      This is very much Web 0.8Beta shit.

    6. Re: interstitial? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought they were radio frequencies that are inserted between existing ones.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    7. Re: interstitial? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      no, it's guggle-foo (like "foot" but without the "T").

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    8. Re: interstitial? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      I had to scroll down far enough in the article to see THIS PICTURE to actually understand wtf they were talking about. Once I knew they meant those bloody "USE OUR APP" screens (that are basically a full-screen advert) that you have to click through just to reach the page you actually wanted. Waste of time. Waste of data. Waste of any chance of me actually downloading your app.

      Thing is, if I wanted to view the information in your app, I probably would have downloaded it and used it. Chances are, I'm perusing the info in Chrome because I only visit the site once or twice and I don't see any value in wasting space on my phone for an app that works just fine in a browser (IMDB: I am looking at you).

    9. Re:Interstitial? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it's a term in biology referring to the space between membranes.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    10. Re:Interstitial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Interstitial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like a special brand of illiteracy.

    12. Re:Interstitial? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      and this is why I am now setting my default browsing score at +1. Fuck off and die in a fire, APK.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    13. Re:Interstitial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awwww, poo' lil' ihtoit got his ass kicked for shooting his mouth off http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...? Yes.

    14. Re:Interstitial? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sure, also has meaning in crystallography. But never heard the term in the realm of browser display, it surely is marketing wankspeak

  2. Same likely holds true... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same thing could likely be said of all obtrusive advertising: it is a nuisance not a benefit.

    1. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of all...advertising

    2. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the noisy animated ads here with autoplay? This site is so bad now, I stopped visiting from work. Hearing someone scream about "search engine optimization" was the final straw. This site truly is now ruled by Republicans.

    3. Re:Same likely holds true... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

      thats not entirely true. some ads are welcome

      I recent got a new car (well new to me) and one of the things i want to do is get fitted seat covers as the interior is an off white and i am....well a slob

      so after looking for a few weeks i havent found anything that fits my needs (fitted, not leather or fake leather, and well made)

      well I noticed some ads all of a sudden starting to show up for fitted car seats and eventually i found what i was looking for because of google ads

      I will admit it is the first time ive found it useful, but when ads are done right, they are not a bad thing

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re: Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was Trolls...

    5. Re:Same likely holds true... by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      or maybe you missed the last sentence where i said "when done right"

      or your just an AC and i dont know why i wasted my time replying

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Same likely holds true... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a related experience. I'll often look for a product, find what I want in under an hour, and spend a day or two sleeping on it, considering other options, etc. I purchase the product. Over the next few days, I'm bombarded with ads for the product I've already purchased. I find it simultaneously amusing and pathetic, but never useful.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:Same likely holds true... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i have a similar method of shopping. First i figure out the type of product im looking for. followed by hours of research before pulling the trigger. In this instance i simply could not find what i was looking for after a week and the ads helped me

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the hell would anyone willingly track down a salesperson to "drown them in details"? Congratulations, your solution is even worse than an advertisement. You must be in sales...

    9. Re:Same likely holds true... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the vast majority of ad benefits come from impressions rather than clicks.

      I don't think I've ever clicked on a movie ad, but I'm sure a lot of my movie choices come from movie ads.

      Same thing for other products, the ads annoy you, but when you go to buy something the one you've seen the ad for suddenly looks a whole lot more credible and familiar.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats not entirely true. some ads are welcome

        I recent got a new car (well new to me) and one of the things i want to do is get fitted seat covers as the interior is an off white and i am....well a slob

        so after looking for a few weeks i havent found anything that fits my needs (fitted, not leather or fake leather, and well made)

        well I noticed some ads all of a sudden starting to show up for fitted car seats and eventually i found what i was looking for because of google ads

        I will admit it is the first time ive found it useful, but when ads are done right, they are not a bad thing

      This post gave me cancer.

    11. Re:Same likely holds true... by trabby · · Score: 1

      It is like stockholm syndrome for ads

    12. Re:Same likely holds true... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      The resources you consume are stolen from the humans who actually deserve to be alive.

    13. Re:Same likely holds true... by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      advertising is theft.

      Properly implemented advertising is what makes the internet "free". As with pretty much anything it can be abused or taken too far, but when you visit a page and read the content, that banner ad / sidebar ad(s) you ignore automatically are probably a large part of how that site stays up. At some point someone had to pay (money or time) to make that site, put it on a server and send those bits over the internet.
      Weren't we talking about interstitial app offers though? We seem to have gotten a bit off course.

    14. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like Ad Syndrom for hostage situations.

    15. Re:Same likely holds true... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I hear this complaint often on Slashdot, but I don't see any way it could be resolved without a massive invasion of privacy (telling the advertisers that you bought something). Some ads have a "not interested" button, but it's too risky to click it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re: Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yes, trolls like the people that insist on lashing out against a specific political party affiliation constantly. (See GP)

    17. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dealing with a Basement Libertarian here.

      Expects everything to be free to him and should anyone else ever want anything from him, it's "theft". Whether paying for goverment services, commercial products, or ad-sponsored content.

      Essentially, he's the ultimate Socialist, but without the redeeming "social" part - all gimme and no share - and when he dies, the entire Universe will be a little bit morally richer for it.

    18. Re:Same likely holds true... by hey! · · Score: 1

      The same thing could likely be said of all obtrusive advertising: it is a nuisance not a benefit.

      They aren't exactly the same, because interstitial ads aren't just obtrustive, they're interfering. You can't simply mentally resolve to ignore them; if you want to continue you've got to either follow the ad or find a way to dismiss it. This presents the user with a Hobson's Choice: physically respond to the ad, or go back.

      A lot depends on how motivated you are to get at the content. If it's something you've clicked out of idle curiosity, you'll back away. If it's something you really want to see you'll fight your way through. Since so much traffic on the Internet is driven by idle curiosity, the 69% figure doesn't surprise me at all. What would be interesting is to disaggregate that figure by types of target content.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Same likely holds true... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      Two weeks later...

      "Would you like to try our cancer management service?"

      "Don't buy lung cancer without trying prostate cancer first!"

      [typo guess] "Check out our awesome brand of cancel!"

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    20. Re:Same likely holds true... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      thats not entirely true. some ads are welcome

        I recent got a new car (well new to me) and one of the things i want to do is get fitted seat covers as the interior is an off white and i am....well a slob

        so after looking for a few weeks i havent found anything that fits my needs (fitted, not leather or fake leather, and well made)

        well I noticed some ads all of a sudden starting to show up for fitted car seats and eventually i found what i was looking for because of google ads

        I will admit it is the first time ive found it useful, but when ads are done right, they are not a bad thing

      Much less helpful is when you google for something you need, find it, buy it, then keep getting ads for something you already purchased and have absolutely no need to purchase again...how long after you bought your seat covers did you keep getting ads for them, do you remember? I have friends who bought a new(ish) vehicle over a year ago, yet their displayed ads are still heavily slanted towards local vehicle dealerships...

      What would, possibly, make these ads useful (maybe) is if the user could 'x' them out, indicating that they aren't interested in that type of ad or that product. I hate advertising in general, but that might give the user an illusion of choice, at least...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    21. Re:Same likely holds true... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      well, wasn't that just incredibly generous of it?

      I mean, it "gave" you cancer. You didn't suddenly, out of sheer nothing-else-to-do-ness, develop it. You were gifted a strange growth by an immaterial stream of information.

      Would that we all were so lucky as you, this world would be a happy, if tumorous, place.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    22. Re:Same likely holds true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re:Same likely holds true... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      The massive invasion of privacy is already going on; one of the places that I considered buying the item from is the one that told the advertisers what kind of thing I was searching for (that, or I suppose that maybe there's a cookie in the browser, and the ad guys were told indirectly. I haven't been curious enough to figure out the exact mechanism for the transfer of information).

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  3. Gmail advertising page and HTML only web client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are Google still pushing that really annoying full screen promo image to some people when you try to log into Gmail ?

    BTW, as a public service I should point out that Gmail's HTML only interface (which you are offered when Javascript is disabled) is far quicker to use on low bandwidth/high latency connections than the Javascript laden junk they normally throw at you.

  4. Continue Link Position by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it has something to do with the continue position, if I don't spot how to get to the content I clicked through to right away I immediately ditch.

  5. No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is truly an epic fail to believe that some random visitor to your website is going to want to install your app just to read a piece of content—particularly if that user got there through a Google search. Yet for some reason, just about every forum out there pops up one of these idiotic app interstitials when I try to view some random post on their site. I didn't go there because I want to be a regular visitor to the site, which means I sure as h*** don't want to install their app just to read the tiny piece of content that may or may not even contain the information I need to do whatever I'm trying to get done.

    The right time to ask a user to install an app is when the user creates an account on the site. Up until that point, the user is probably an infrequent visitor and is unlikely to want to install the app. Even at that point, the user may not want to install the app, but at least there's some nonzero possibility that he or she might.

    Of course, the real train wreck is that there's no standard for making websites' contents available for app use, which would allow a user to install one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in. There's really no chance of me installing an app that only lets me read content from one website, because A. it is unlikely to be much better than viewing the website (because probably the same people designed it), and B. I already have more apps than I can deal with anyway. But if every website I visit standardized on a feed scheme, along with a common authentication system and a common reply system, I could see myself installing a single app that worked with all of them.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:No kidding. by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if every website I visit standardized on a feed scheme, along with a common authentication system and a common reply system, I could see myself installing a single app that worked with all of them.

      During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!

      This is interesting because I'm currently working to migrate our content into a 'responsive design' system that is geared to showing unbroken webpages, using the SAME site and code, on everything from fullscreen computers to the smaller phones.

      I'll admit, the content might not be as 'perfect' as if it was designed specifically for one or the other on the matching device, but it's pretty good on all of them and doesn't actually take much design work on the part of the individual site creators. Given that they're non-web experts that's a good thing. The point is to present the information, not make it perfectly pretty.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re: No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I've installed 7 apps to my phone and I don't see that number changing anytime soon. If anything, I'll remove some before I add any.

    3. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't go there because I want to be a regular visitor to the site, which means I sure as h*** don't want to install their app just to read the tiny piece of content that may or may not even contain the information I need to do whatever I'm trying to get done.

      It's okay, you don't need to censor your text. We all know you meant hose.

    4. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if every website I visit standardized on a feed scheme, along with a common authentication system and a common reply system, I could see myself installing a single app that worked with all of them.

      We call that a "browser".

    5. Re:No kidding. by blang · · Score: 1

      It is truly an epic fail to believe that some random visitor to your website is going to want to install your app just to read a piece of content—particularly if that user got there through a Google search. Yet for some reason, just about every forum out there pops up one of these idiotic app interstitials when I try to view some random post on their site. I didn't go there because I want to be a regular visitor to the site, which means I sure as h*** don't want to install their app just to read the tiny piece of content that may or may not even contain the information I need to do whatever I'm trying to get done.

      The right time to ask a user to install an app is when the user creates an account on the site. Up until that point, the user is probably an infrequent visitor and is unlikely to want to install the app. Even at that point, the user may not want to install the app, but at least there's some nonzero possibility that he or she might.

      Of course, the real train wreck is that there's no standard for making websites' contents available for app use, which would allow a user to install one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in. There's really no chance of me installing an app that only lets me read content from one website, because A. it is unlikely to be much better than viewing the website (because probably the same people designed it), and B. I already have more apps than I can deal with anyway. But if every website I visit standardized on a feed scheme, along with a common authentication system and a common reply system, I could see myself installing a single app that worked with all of them.

      And despite what you say, the facebook app is pretty much standard on every user's smart phone, and the app only shows content from facebook, So, don't walk about thinking you just wrote a new law of nature. A billion others just disproved your law. You're not so special, kid. If installing apps was the only way you could get to content you wanted, you would be installing apps left and right. We all fly our flags high, until we get trampled by the hordes and become part of it,

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    6. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the real train wreck is that there's no standard for making websites' contents available for app use, which would allow a user to install one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in.

      Sure there is. That's exactly what RSS was made to do. Not only can you visit a site, get a feed, and add it yourself, but there are also applications that curate and categorize popular RSS feeds so that you can search for and add them without having to visit the websites first.

      The problem is that nobody wants to use it because you can't stuff two dozen adverts into a page, split the article into six pages, annoy the reader, and further devalue the entire concept even more in a futile attempt to earn an extra penny per article if they're lucky.

      Not that they don't try; Slashdot's RSS feed now crams four animated GIF advertisements into every RSS summary, making the advertisement-to-content ratio 2:1 -- twice as much space dedicated to advert vs content. I tolerated it when it was only one or two small ones, but it's getting ridiculous. I'm considering just deleting the feed and sticking to SoylentNews and The Register's RSS feed at this point.

    7. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The point is to present the information, not make it perfectly pretty

      And that is why you dont work for Apple...

      just making a joke, please ignore. No useful content included.

    8. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if I'm a regular visitor, I might not want to download anyone's app because I'm running out of space on my mobile phone. Too many of these loser specialized apps act like space is unlimited and cache many megabytes, nor can I customize its cache to save things on my external memory card which has many gigabytes free.

    9. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!

      The problem is, mobile devices don't handle web forums very well. Web designers don't design their themes with mobile devices in mind, resulting in text that's too small to read, text entry fields that are too wide for the screen, etc. That's not true for every site, but it is pretty common.

      An actual native app, by contrast, is likely to be designed by people who actually understand the platform and its limitations, its screen size, etc. So potentially, if done properly, it can produce a much better user experience than a browser is likely to produce (though a browser could produce a similarly good experience if all the web designers took the time to design their sites properly for mobile devices... and I want a pony...).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And despite what you say, the facebook app is pretty much standard on every user's smart phone, and the app only shows content from facebook ...

      ... and is used exclusively by people who have accounts on the site. That's a completely different usage model than just going to a website and browsing it, which is to say that you didn't really contradict my main point with that example.

      Facebook is also a bit of an exception because of the sheer amount of time that many people spend on it, the potential benefits of tighter integration with the operating system (background notifications), etc.

      But for every exception, there are a thousand non-exceptions. Even though I have the FB app installed, I wouldn't really consider installing a Slashdot app; the way I interact with the site is completely different, with my FB interaction being a lot more active, and involving a lot more photo uploads and other such activities that web browsers do pretty badly in the mobile world.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. That's exactly what RSS [wikipedia.org] was made to do. Not only can you visit a site, get a feed, and add it yourself, but there are also applications that curate and categorize popular RSS feeds so that you can search for and add them without having to visit the websites first.

      The problem is that RSS is one-directional. If I want to post, I still have to go back to a browser window and use whatever random, horrible, non-mobile-friendly interface the site designers came up with. And posting is usually the part where a native app would be beneficial; the reading part is easy by comparison....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:No kidding. by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!

      More specifically, there are web apps! This gives the look-and-feel of an app, including an icon on the homescreen and offline access. All you need to do is add a few extra files to your existing website. Users won't have to go through the app store, and updates happen automatically.

      This was the only kind of app on the original iPhone.

      Also: obligatory xkcd

    13. Re:No kidding. by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

      What you're looking for is called "Pulse". It used to be independent, but was acquired by LinkedIn at some point (and I'm being too lazy to google when it happened). They have news sites, funny content, and...I don't remember what else, because that's pretty much all I use it for. Still, they have an aggregator-type method of displaying new posts from each site, which allow you to view most (if not all) of each new post in the app. If you want to see more, you can continue to the full site.

    14. Re:No kidding. by Vokkyt · · Score: 1

      I would question your assertion on the native app; often times native apps are a second-thought, not a dedicated project, and unless the company has someone who is well versed in mobile development, it's usually a programming team's first and last foray into mobile design.

      The truth is that not a lot of businesses/locations need an app - there's little to no functionality that can be obtained via the app that cannot be replicated in browser with a little bit of elbow grease, and the small benefits that an app can give are usually negligible when compared to, as Google put it in TFA, the "friction" of the mobile experience that interstitials cause.

    15. Re:No kidding. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      No useful content included.

      Your comment sure was pretty, though.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    16. Re:No kidding. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the point. On most sites, you just want to READ content. RSS is just fine for that.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    17. Re:No kidding. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      During your rant, I couldn't help but think, 'But they DO have a standardized app for accessing all the websites', and it's called the browser!

      I think that you're slightly missing the grandparent's point. About 10-15 years ago, there were two groups pushing new directions for the web. One group, led mostly by the W3C (though backed by Apple and a few other big companies) wanted to completely separate content and presentation. You'd have a service that would provide structured XML and then a web page or a native app that would process it and present it to the user. This would make it easy to write programs that aggregated data from multiple sources (e.g. find bus, train and flight times and prices so that you can find out the cheapest or most convenient route from A to B, including getting to and from different airports).

      The other faction, led by Google, wanted to completely destroy this separation and make web pages into rich web apps that would ensure that you could only view the content in exactly the form that the authors intended. The main goal of this was to make it hard to distinguish content from ads and therefore make it hard to automatically remove ads.

      Unfortunately, the second group mostly won. The grandparent seems to want people to go back to the other approach and present machine-readable data feeds so that we can then have rich client-side apps that are agnostic to the source, but present the data as the user wants. I'd like that too.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:No kidding. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in.

      Isn't that called a 'Web browser'?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    19. Re:No kidding. by rvw · · Score: 1

      Even if I'm a regular visitor, I might not want to download anyone's app because I'm running out of space on my mobile phone. Too many of these loser specialized apps act like space is unlimited and cache many megabytes, nor can I customize its cache to save things on my external memory card which has many gigabytes free.

      Even when having many gigabytes available I prefer Facebook in the browser over the app. I don't want the FB app to read (and upload) all my contacts, locations, etc...

    20. Re:No kidding. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      An actual native app, by contrast, is likely to be designed by people who actually understand the platform and its limitations, its screen size, etc. So potentially, if done properly, it can produce a much better user experience than a browser is

      I disagree with your premise entirely, the browser theme can be responsive to screen size and you can deliver a different theme based on browser strings, so there's no reason whatsoever that you can't take the device into consideration without having to do all the work yourself. But what I actually came to point out is that in practice most of these forums use tapatalk, and that tapatalk is a gigantic festering piece of shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:No kidding. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But for every exception, there are a thousand non-exceptions. Even though I have the FB app installed, I wouldn't really consider installing a Slashdot app

      I would consider installing a Slashdot app, but I consider anyone who installs a Facebook app to be acting like they're new. The facebook app has shit upon users repeatedly, and that's basically what facebook exists to do. I would never trust facebook to run an app on my phone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:No kidding. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      some phones have higher screen resolution than my netbook.

      Asus EeePC 1008HA: 1024x600

      Motorola Droid Turbo: 1440p WQHD
      Oppo Find 7: 1440p WQHD
      LG G3: 1440p WQHD
      Samsung Galaxy Note 4: 1440p WQHD
      Sony Experia Z3: 1080p HD
      Google Nexus 6: 1440p WQHD
      Samsung Galaxy S5: 1080p HD/1440p WQHD (Korean variant)

      I won't count iPhone 6S because while it has 1080p physical screen resolution, it uses just ninth of that area for point mapping and then extrapolates by 3x to fill the screen using a rasterisation process, just like every other iphone before it. Ostensibly to reduce the memory load. Yeah, I had to read that twice as well.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    23. Re:No kidding. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I'd install a slashdot app but only if you'll like my cat pictures.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    24. Re:No kidding. by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      Yes, and how many of those apps ask for a copy of your address book ? I don't mind sharing if needed for a function, web privacy being a lost cause, but if you want to d/l my 5000 plus contact professional contact list, uh, NO.

    25. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    26. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    27. Re:No kidding. by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's because it gets shoved in there by the OEM and can't be removed without rooting the phone.

    28. Re:No kidding. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your premise entirely, the browser theme can be responsive to screen size

      That's exactly what our responsive design does. if you're viewing it on a wide screen, it does columns and has a nice menu to the side and such.

      As the window narrows, it gets rid of the columns, and eventually reworks the menu as a button to maintain as much content visibility as possible.

      As a bonus, you don't have to maximize the window, or at least get it over a thousand pixels wide for the site to render correctly. While 1920x1200 monitors are common as heck at my work, people also have a tendency to turn them sideways for various reasons.

      I've seen a few sites that won't render correctly on 'cheap' laptops that only have 720p screens.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    29. Re:No kidding. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You slap an icon onto my homescreen for a website I've visited once and have no intentions of visiting again and we're going to have issues...

      Start using my cell phone's data plan to download content for offline access when, because it's a cell phone, offline is 'rare', for content that I probably don't care about, again, not good.

      As long as it's optional, I'm fine with it.

      And yes, the zoom thing is annoying.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    30. Re:No kidding. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The web started with content and formatting bundled together in html. Then we got tools like css, javascript, xm, json, web components, etc, that allowed (but didn't force) us to separate content and formatting.

      Separating content and formatting is better for consumers and also developers/ Even google does it in their own pages.

      I'm really not sure exactly what you are referring to. Is there a particular standard that Apple supported and Google opposed?

      Because I think what you are talking about is actually the standard way of organizing web content, but some people elect to use older paradigms that browsers still support.

    31. Re:No kidding. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Browsers are perfectly capable of uploading photos. It's not 1997 anymore.

    32. Re:No kidding. by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's up to the user to decide what pages he stores on his homescreen, and he can choose to do so when he's got WiFi. -It's just like installing an app, except you don't have to go through the app store.

    33. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Web browsers on mobile devices don't provide facilities for downsampling the images, though, which makes standalone apps rather useful for sites that rely on photo uploading over slow cellular connections.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    34. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That's why I don't want every random site creating its own app. When I said those words, it was in the context of a general-purpose mobile app, not a niche app for a single small website.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    35. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So is a web browser, which is exactly my point.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    36. Re:No kidding. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Of course, the real train wreck is that there's no standard for making websites' contents available for app use, which would allow a user to install one reader that can read content on any of the dozen sites that he or she might be interested in.

      I believe they call that a browser.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:No kidding. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      D'oh! I must learn to scroll down before posting. Unfortunately it is difficult as there are often many replies. But, yes... It is called a browser. You can even customize this newly created interface by adding favorites which make it a trivial task to navigate to sites. We should call them bookmarks, or favorites, and promote such an idea. Maybe a standard display language, let's call it markup, will be beneficial.

      I have not looked and would not know but it seems that there should be a potential for a miniature device markup language. Sort of like HTML but for mobiles and other small-screen devices. The blink tag should be part of that ratified standard, of course. (The blink element was never depreciated because it was never actually a part of the standard. Browser vendors opted to include it.) Anyhow, the miniature device markup has potential for resizing and can be extended to make an app like the one the OP was talking about more easily. I have my own personal issues with W3C but they are probably the best tool for the job should this ever be considered.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    38. Re:No kidding. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There is javascript and HTML5.

    39. Re:No kidding. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Search for 'semantic web'. XHTML 2.0 was the core of a family of standards that completely separated data, ontology maps, and presentation.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    40. Re:No kidding. by tepples · · Score: 1

      As the window narrows, it gets rid of the columns

      This when one user instructs another on how to use the site:
      "...and look in the right column."
      "What right column?"

      Also, how do you avoid loading the HTML that goes into the hidden columns so that mobile viewers don't have to pay data overages for things they'll never see?

    41. Re:No kidding. by tepples · · Score: 1

      You'd have a service that would provide structured XML and then a web page or a native app that would process it and present it to the user.

      As for "web page", AJAX apps do exactly this. As for "native app", good luck getting a Mac-only native app to run on your Windows PC.

    42. Re:No kidding. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Note: I hate how easy the 'back' button is on my tablet.

      The data isn't hidden, it flows into fewer columns, making the remaining ones wider.

      As for looking at the site, you just have to accept that the cell phone view is substantially different than on a computer. It happens.

      And there's typically nothing that interesting in the right columns...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    43. Re:No kidding. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As for "web page", AJAX apps do exactly this

      AJAX provides a mechanism for delivering the XML. How many popular web apps can you name that completely separate the back end and the front end and provide documentation for users to talk directly to the back end and substitute their own UI or amalgamate the data with that from other services? Of those, how many provide the data in a self-documenting form?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:No kidding. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The other faction, led by Google, wanted to completely destroy this separation and make web pages into rich web apps that would ensure that you could only view the content in exactly the form that the authors intended. The main goal of this was to make it hard to distinguish content from ads and therefore make it hard to automatically remove ads.

      Do you have any sources for this claim? Or is this your opinion? I'm just interested in the subject and would like to learn more.

    45. Re:No kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't figured it out yet? You need all those single apps so each asshole that makes you rake the app is now tracking everywhere you go, do and read. Worse than any spyware on a normal computer. Of course that is the whole reason for Android to spy on you and everything you do and think.

      We now live in a world of peeping toms and Eric Shit is the worse.

      How to fix this don't use Goog or Android

    46. Re:No kidding. by tepples · · Score: 1

      How many popular web apps can you name that completely separate the back end and the front end and provide documentation for users to talk directly to the back end and substitute their own UI or amalgamate the data with that from other services?

      I can't count every web site that has an API, but examples include Amazon, eBay, and Twitter.

    47. Re:No kidding. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's mostly opinion, formed from watching Google's interaction with standards processes and browser development communities.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    48. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Neither of those provides any mechanism for downsampling an image before uploading it. In fact, from a same-origin security model perspective, JS code isn't even supposed to be able to access the image data before uploading it, though I think they've left some holes where devs can get around that....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    49. Re:No kidding. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      After 5 seconds of googling.
      http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

    50. Re:No kidding. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wow. They've really opened up filesystem access since I last looked. So much for same origin policies....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    51. Re:No kidding. by blang · · Score: 1

      Nope it was not installed on my phone fore sure.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    52. Re:No kidding. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It was on mine and many others. I don't even use facebook, but I have the app. Yours is not the only phone in the world.

    53. Re:No kidding. by blang · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are so special. Maybe they give out awards for that.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  6. Why Interstitials Suck by mjwx · · Score: 2

    I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.

    The main reason is that if I'm going to a site, I want a specific page and when you dismiss an interstitial 9 times out of 10 instead of taking me to the content I want to view, it drops me on the sites main/landing page.

    Its the same with popup/popover ads. On mobile these are a pain in the arse to close and they interfere with the content I'm trying to view, so again I'll just mash the back button until its gone.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Why Interstitials Suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The back button doesn't even work every time. Some sites have instant redirection so unless you mash it ultra fast, you get taken to the landing page or back to the ad-ridden article. I've had this unpleasant experience a few times myself.

    2. Re:Why Interstitials Suck by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      That's why I always just open links in new tabs, and if I get an interstitial, I just close the tab.

    3. Re:Why Interstitials Suck by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's why I always just open links in new tabs, and if I get an interstitial, I just close the tab.

      That doesn't always work unfortunately. Some pages are set up to redirect everyone to prevent this. When that happens I move my thumb 2 cm to the right to hit Androids menu button so I can swipe the offending page into oblivion.

      Then I make a mental note never to go back there again.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Why Interstitials Suck by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Same here. When one of those pop up I refuse to go any farther.

    5. Re:Why Interstitials Suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm one of those people who instantly turn off whenever I get an Interstitial. If I dont get taken directly to the page I wanted I'll mash the back button.

      THIS.

  7. well...duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people wanted an App they would search for it in the App store. If they're using the website then it can be safely assumed they don't want to use the App.

  8. Get out my way! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bugging me to install the app and interrupting me for a survey or chat less than a second after visiting are all amazing ways to piss me off. I see most of this on sites where I'm already looking to be a customer. Don't interfere with me giving you business.

  9. interstitial by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    whats an app interstitial

    1. Re:interstitial by arielCo · · Score: 2
      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    2. Re:interstitial by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A $5 word that a Google intern pulled out of his ass to impress his peers, who still haven't figured that the real world uses $1 words.

    3. Re:interstitial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A $5 word that a Google intern pulled out of his ass to impress his peers, who still haven't figured that the real world uses $1 words.

      $1 words, only 50 cents! Use them twice to get your money's worth.

    4. Re:interstitial by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Seriously, never heard this word before in my life.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:interstitial by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, it should mean something like "between the walls", but in context I've no idea...except that other people seem to be implying that it means you need to install a program to read the content of a web site. Truly a bad idea. So I guess that, say, Flash is an interstitial.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:interstitial by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The last time I heard it was in high school biology. That was ... quite a few years ago.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. I think the real problem is... by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    ...that it was Google+, not that something was promoted through an interstice. The topic should be revisited when there's data on something else as well.

    1. Re:I think the real problem is... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that the ad was ineffective. Over 2/3 of visitors left the site as soon as the pop-up was displayed - it was actively driving most visitors away. That's not a rejection of Google+, it's a rejection of the site for using overly intrusive advertising.

  11. Browsing with mosquitoes by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had to look it up also.

    An "interstitial" pops up before the page you want, or a few seconds after.

    It's a speed-bump in reading the website: stop, grab the mouse, find the close mark, get rid of the thing, and continue.

    It's basically adding mosquitoes to your browsing experience.

    (Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon. You have to choose one of the presented links to close.)

    1. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a speed-bump in reading the website: stop, grab the mouse, find the close mark, get rid of the thing, and continue.

      Oh, how I hate these things! Ad-block doesn't even block them all(because they're often not ads).

      1. Download the app! Really? First time here, don't want to mess with that!
      2. Like us on X media! I haven't even read one article of yours yet! Have a 1 star because the first thing you did was piss me off!
      3. Do you want to sign up for our newsletter? See above, I found you on a random google search for information. NO.
      4. Are you willing to review our website? Sure. Part 1: Get rid of the immediate popoup!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      i didnt know the term either, but after looking it up i agree

      when I am on my phone there are 2 types of pages that if i get them, i refuse to go to again

      sites with popups that dont get blocked by adblock, no i dont care about what you are trying to sell me, show me what i asked for

      the other is "list" sites, where they have a list that might have 10 photos and no (or very little text) yet they want me to load a new page for each item on the list. It is even worse if i can go to the site from a desktop and not have the page split over 10 pages so why do it to me on mobile? I know why (ads) and I dont care. I dont want to a - waste my time clicking next after i look at each slide for 5 seconds, and B i dont want to waste my phones data package on a bunch of ads, that take up more data than the content im looking for to begin with!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      (Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon. You have to choose one of the presented links to close.)

      I find the close icon on the browser tab to be effective in those cases.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like most of the sites people try to link to. You hit the link:

      First, it asks to take you to the App store.
      Second, it does anyway for some POS F2P/P2W app
      Third, it might have just a chunk of a photo, where you have to go through steps 1 and 2 again.
      Fourth, after 10-20 seconds, it redirects you off.

      Solution? Android, F-Droid, Ad-Away, and Dolphin Browser.

    5. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much, much harder to do on a mobile platform when the popup/interstitial's "close" functionality is located off-screen.

    6. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how I hate these things! Ad-block doesn't even block them all(because they're often not ads)

      You need to have a look at the Flashblock extension. With this extension, you can decide on an individual basis which flash objects on a page run with clickable boxes indicating what's available. There are probably similar plugins for HTML5 video, but in my experience HTML5 video interstitials are still uncommon and rarely, if ever, delivered from the site itself instead of an ad server.

    7. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Ah, so that annoyance. I usually leave pages that do that on the web as well and right away. They obviously do not care about their visitors. Probably the only thing these do is annoy people, I cannot really imagine anybody paying attention to them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by sqlrob · · Score: 3

      It's a speed-bump in reading the website: stop, grab the mouse

      Not reading the article is bad, but not even reading the headline?

    9. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon."

      Or worse, the Close X is slightly off the screen. At this point I have no choice but to abandon the website.

      If it actively drives me away from you site by preventing em from going past a certain point, it's not an advertisement. We need a new term for it.

    10. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that Safari's "Reader" feature really helps with those. It's gotten to the point where I read most news stories in Reader now just to get rid of all the non-ad crud and clickbait on pages (ads are already blocked with /etc/hosts, click-to-plugin, ghostery, etc). Reader's great on my iPod: it makes bad sites legible.

      You can also inspect the web page in Safari, Firefox and Chrome and delete from the DOM tree the nodes generating the interstitial (or other blocking ads).

    11. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5. Install the app so we can get more information about you than we could through a regular web browser! NO.

    12. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      The absolute worst offender is Tapatalk. Not only is it annoying every time you visit any kind of web based forum but last I checked it is a paid app and all the reviews for it on Google Play say it's absolutely horrible.

    13. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      In this case they're not talking about the advertisement screens, but about websites that completely block mobile access and display a "download app" instead.
      I know I've met a few such sites and just closed the browser tab instead.
      Apparently I'm not allowed to see what one of their subscribers posted without having to sign away all my personal information first.
      Those apps invariably need unrestricted access to my entire phone for me to view some pictures or read some text.
      If I wanted to install an app for your site, I wouldn't be visiting your website in a browser, now would I?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    14. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are Greasemonkey scripts that can bypass most of them, such as AdsBypass. Unfortunately you need a number of them to cover all sites.

      It seems like there is an opportunity here for an AdBlock like plug-in that can download communal Javascript code to skip these ads. It would need more checking that AdBlock rules though, because it would actually be running Javascript.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that you may forget to turn off blocking of whatever analytics spyware they're running, so they won't get feedback that you only stayed on the page for a few seconds before leaving the site.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the close X just does the same thing as clicking on the damn ad in the first place.

      Or did you think you really "miss" the X that often?

    17. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it actively drives me away from you site by preventing em from going past a certain point, it's not an advertisement. We need a new term for it.

      Lossvertisement?
      User rejector?
      Traffic limiter?
      Competition booster?
      Profit cap?

    18. Re: Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always treat those X's with extreme suspicion, carefully looking for another way to close and checking the link hint in the status bar. I always feel dirty when I have to click anywhere inside the borders of one of those ads.

    19. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon. You have to choose one of the presented links to close.)

      And some aren't sized/scollable for mobile devices and the "close" control cannot be physically accessed at all. Meaning that the site is totally useless.

    20. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More javascript's more slowness and more exploits delivered by it. No thanks.

    21. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      "Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon."

      Or worse, the Close X is slightly off the screen. At this point I have no choice but to abandon the website.

      If it actively drives me away from you site by preventing em from going past a certain point, it's not an advertisement. We need a new term for it.

      We have one: it's basically a pop-up.

      It behaves like one in every way, just the mechanics of how it's displayed is different...so maybe browsers need to dust off their 'pop-up blocker' option code and update it to block these damn things too? The simple fact that pop-ups were annoying enough to enough people that blocking them became a standard feature in browsers should perhaps be a hint to the people who use these things that their days are numbered...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    22. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by jcr · · Score: 1

      An "interstitial" pops up before the page you want, or a few seconds after.

      I hate those fucking things. When I see one, I leave the site.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    23. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      Perhaps "mouse" is a euphemism for something more salacious.

    24. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      subscription-based information portals are often referred to as "paywalls".
      Softawre that installs third party components such as searchbars, BHOs, keyloggers and IRC clients without the users knowledge or consent are referred to as "scumware".
      This is coercive advertising, that basically forces you into at least sampling what they have to offer if you want access to the information you asked for. This should be called "Scumwall".

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    25. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by tepples · · Score: 1

      in my experience HTML5 video interstitials are still uncommon

      I've seen HTML5 video interstitials when browsing Wikia with an Android device.

    26. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by tepples · · Score: 1

      Second, it does anyway for some POS F2P/P2W app [...] Solution? Android, F-Droid

      I might be misunderstanding you, but how are apps available through F-Droid a substitute for "some POS F2P/P2W app"? I thought games were one of the few things free software had trouble providing.

    27. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    28. Re:Browsing with mosquitoes by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Heh, at that point it's no longer an 'ad-blocker' so much as it's an 'annoyance blocker'.

      I wonder what the courts would say about that one.

      "No, your honor, my plug-in is NOT deliberately targeted at ads. It does just as it's name implies, it blocks annoyances on websites. It also blocks XYZ types of malware, prevents audio and video from automatically playing when the site is opened, those boxes that follow your screen around, and a number of other annoyances, making the browsing experience less of a hassle. It was just that the claimant's having a popup to the center of the screen that invited you to 'punch the monkey' on a site that, for example, was primarily on how to do your own oil changes, was an annoyance.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  12. Always use AdBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved.

  13. A good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will close the window or tab when these things are presented. The content isn't worth dealing with these ads.

  14. Dedicated app = buggy bloatware by HalAtWork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I *never* want the App. Native client = buggy memory hog that can introduce vulnerabilities and violate my privacy in even bigger ways.

    Besides that, I don't want a separate app for each site or forum I visit, that's overkill. I'll get too many notifications and have to download a ton of client updates constantly. I'd rather just visit a site when I choose to (and not be bugged by notifications) and have it work properly and be working with the most up to date version right away.,

    These useless apps are what people wish weren't included with their desktops, why would they want them on mobile?

    1. Re:Dedicated app = buggy bloatware by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I imagine that people who write shitty mobile app code, also write shitty mobile web code. I think web code is safer, because browser code is more highly scrutinized, and sandboxing is a good feature, but I don't think you should expect it to hog less memory, if anything it will be more.

  15. Interrupting is impolite. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Whether it happens on a computer or in person. Only a marketing dick, an MBA or a CEO would be dumb enough to miss the fact that it passes people off enough to drive people away from a Web site.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  16. Yeah, So... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It'd be nice if Google could detect and downrank these sites. They should probably also do that for any site that gives you a significantly different page if it detects the google webcrawler versus any other agent. And as long as I'm asking, also pages that require Javascript to render. Downrank the lot because clicking on them is just a waste of my time anyway.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yeah, So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last week, news.google.com was giving me the "download the google news app" every time I visited the site on my phone. Was seriously thinking to write and publicize a web proxy filter to block that kind of behavior.

    2. Re:Yeah, So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google recently downrated sites that were not mobile friendly (i.e. responsive design). You should get uprated if your waters are not ad infested, but then people pay Google to advertize and also to rank higher... dollar beats altruism. I use JS on my site - to drive navigation. Show me another way to do this efficiently and dynamically (not editing 400 files by hand to change a menu entry).. and I'll drop the JS. So far, 15 years searching and no such luck, so enable JavaScript if you want to navigate on my website.

    3. Re:Yeah, So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 years searching and no such luck

      Use some sort of server-side code?

    4. Re:Yeah, So... by tepples · · Score: 1

      I use JS on my site - to drive navigation. Show me another way to do this efficiently and dynamically

      Use some sort of server-side code?

      Using "some sort of server-side code" would require re-sending the entire web page if one small part of it has changed. This is slow and expensive on cellular or satellite connections. It also requires a hosting plan that allows use of "some sort of server-side code", unlike ad-supported shared hosting providers that have historically supported only static HTML files.

  17. Fuck those things by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One common thing they do is grey out the background so the box draws your attention. Can we stop that somehow?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Fuck those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One common thing they do is grey out the background so the box draws your attention. Can we stop that somehow?

      Sounds like a job for the NoScript extension.

    2. Re:Fuck those things by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      That, and they never go away unless you just get the app and never visit their site without it.

      https://xkcd.com/1174/

    3. Re:Fuck those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When this happens I act as if it were a rendering glitch and reload the page. Most of the time it's gone the second time (cookie?) and I'm satisfied knowing that the website got penalized by spending twice the bandwidth. If the box is still there after a reload, I close the tab.

    4. Re:Fuck those things by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can usually adblock the greying out. There are two strategies:

      A) Try to adblock the overlay, which is usually a named DIV, using element hiding rules. This is usually quite effective.

      B) Block the Javascript files that generate the overlay. This can also be done with NoScript of course.

      Some sites are wise to (A) now so they add the overlay DIV with Javascript after the page has loaded, so (B) is necessary. Some are now wise to both, but you can still block them with Javascript. At that point though, I think you have to question if it is worth visiting those sites at all.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Fuck those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you increased their page count and re-read rate. Both of which are considered good metrics.

      You also used cache, so server bandwidth wasn't affected, and that server is behind a CDN anyways. Server bandwidth costs aren't coming into play at all.

    6. Re:Fuck those things by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I see these as "you don't really want to go to this site, it is most likely clickbait advertising spammy useless website."

      I file it under "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" Now, if everyone would stop visiting these sites, they will die, and go away.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  18. Definition of an Interstitial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those who don't know WTF an interstitial is, it's basically a pop-up that appears in a web page that blocks access to the rest of the page until you dismiss it. It's not like a traditional pop-up windows that adblockers can block easily these days, but rather integrated inside the page that many blockers don't deal with.

    1. Re:Definition of an Interstitial by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      IE the software equivalent of rape.

      Or at least an order of magnitude less acceptable than slapping your customers round the face with a wet fish.

      Why did anyone need to do any research to discover that this was the optimal way of pissing of web users?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  19. Slightly less annoying on iOS, but still by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate the stupid "hey we have an app!" block that takes up real estate at the top of the screen every freaking time I chance upon any one of a million stupid sites. No, I don't want the dedicated app for your website - I view it maybe twice a year! No, I don't want to install an app to participate on your forum! Nor do I want your website sending me push notifications on OS X, for that matter.

    I understand that you can't figure out how to make a living from your website... but that's your problem, not mine. Maybe you need to get a real job like the rest of us.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  20. How many people can't get rid of these things? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many of these 69% abandonment were due to user error in trying to get rid of the damn thing. Especially on mobile platforms where the ad can take up the entire browser screen and the back button has no effect on it. When something unexpected happens and you end up on an unexpected page the logical thing to do is hit back. Unfortunately for this stupid advertising the back button has the result of leaving the page altogether to go to the previous one.

    I'm quite bad at that. It takes a conscious effort on my part to make it past these popups the first time without accidentally leaving the page. I hope their statistics took that into account.

    Actually I don't, I hope their numbers are over inflated and this stupid practice crashes and burns.

  21. I dont want your APP! by fred911 · · Score: 1

    I don't want your flash enabled or video/audio streamed content shoved down my throat.

      Fuck.. so much of the time I just want to load up Lynx to mandate a better S/N ratio

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. Ever Suck Your Own Penis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (without the aid of anything but your mouth)

    how far did you get down to?

  23. Interstitials by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Do you want to lose visitors?

    Because that's how you lose visitors.

  24. I close the browser tab for interstitials by msobkow · · Score: 1

    There are a number of websites that try to push interstitials to the desktop. When I get those blank pages with AdBlock Plus installed, I just close the browser tab. The story or photos are NEVER interesting enough to put up with that kind of shit.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  25. Just mobile? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    After years of abuse, I just instantly close a website now if it decides an interstitial ad is needed. Regardless of where I am browsing.

    No content is worth the suffering, no video can have enough cats to justify the anguish.

    I have no idea if my own droopy matters at all, but I like to think window closure after interstitial presentation is a metric tracked and at least I am increasing it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appears your opposition only have unjustifiable minusmods vs. http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... since that's the last time you posted it and it was minus modded yet with no valid technical justifications why.

  27. Interstitial? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    That word isn't in my vocabulary, but is that some kind of marketing wank's "web 2.0" shit?

  28. One wonders by no-body · · Score: 1

    what the benefit of this popup stuff is and who pays/earns something here? Developers must get paid somehow. Seems some idiotic pipe dream. I get this crap - desktop, try a page reload if it comes up again, tab close an if the "do you really want to do this" - or similar, I get really pissed. What are those idiots programming this shit thinking? Poerverts! If I get this on mobile, I get so pissed that I do something else, no mobilem

    1. Re:One wonders by tepples · · Score: 1

      Please don't start a sentence in the subject and finish it in the comment. It makes it harder to quote your post for context.

      I can think of three kinds of interstitials, each with a different set of who pays and who earns. For ad interstitials, the advertiser pays, and the ad network and the "publisher" (site on which ads are placed) earn. For stickiness interstitials, such as follow us via e-mail or Twitter or download our app, the same happens except much later when the user visits again later and views more ads. For subscription interstitials, the user has to pay to make the box disappear.

      tab close an if the "do you really want to do this"

      I've seen this with "1 weird trick" clickbait ads that lead to a 20-minute video infomercial with no progress meter. Click the back button or close box, and they will replace the video with a transcript and put up an "are you sure" to let the viewer choose to finish the ad in case the viewer prefers text to video.

  29. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are going to reply to yourself and pretend someone else is defending you over downmods, you should at least wait long enough to actually get modded down...

  30. Re: AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's copypasta APK. Real APK would know using hosts to block this would block the entire site.

  31. hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AdBlock element hider rocks, it's made host alone an obsolete option. Hosts simply can't manage removing of harmful inline ads that are inserted server-side.

    The arms war between ads makers and ad blocks is here, and hosts is a dead end solution that cannot grow outside of its original design.

    From this point forward, I would only recommend using hosts as a supplement to help trim the weaker ad technology from your browser and email.

    - APK's goat

    1. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only thing adblock does is take bribes to not do its job. It can't do a fraction of what hosts do http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... which you prove since all you have is your ac posts after you downmod his posts. It must blow to be a weasel like you with no skills or talent.

    2. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why do hosts do so much more than adblock does?

    3. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RAM makers like Adblock+ cuz it eats so much of it, hahaha http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... and does less than hosts do by a longshot and it's inefficient and adbloc's not even doing the 1 job it had due to bribery paid them.

    4. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ClarityRay made adblock obsolete by detecting it n' blocking users of adblock from sites using clarityray.

    5. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      element hider literally does more, so the whole "fraction of" argument is obsolete. and I've already imported third party lists, which demonstrates that the maintenance of the list does not have to be coupled by the special interests of the plug-in developer. Simply unchecking the white list is sufficient to undo all the business with the "bribes", as you call it.

        A pretty effective combo for ad blocking in Firefox is: https://adblockplus.org/en/ and https://adblockplus.org/en/elemhidehelper

      Then uncheck "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" under "Filter preferences". It will even kill text ads, like you those annoying "sponsored" articles on news.yahoo.com.

      For bonus points you can install a hosts file, which tends to have a side effect that kill video ads pretty well. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

      APK's goat drops the mic

    6. Re:hosts is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scanning 2 million entries of hosts isn't that great either. It's well known that AdBlock's memory usage is out of control [mozilla.org]. But first I'm talking about element hider, which you know nothing about apparently, as you have not prepared a canned response for it (as you aren't aware that element hider fixes the ClarityRay issue). And I openly admit that AdBlock could be better, but hosts cannot be any better than it already is. That doesn't mean hosts is perfect, it means hosts can no longer evolve!

      - APK's goat

  32. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you've got is unjustifiable downmods vs apk and can't prove him wrong. You're showing us you're just a weak cowardly whimp.

  33. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to read. Check links dumbfuck. He posted one you minusmodded here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  34. Iterstitials are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!

    1. Re:Iterstitials are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're thinking of the udder ones.

    2. Re: Iterstitials are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, hey sexconker...

  35. My phone itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    asks me every time if I want to share my location with google. And every time it get's a "no". The "never ask me again" only exists for "yes".

    The "phone" has never seen a card (so it isn't really a phone), and it probably never will.

  36. But interstitials work. Don't hate the game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a publisher we look only at one thing though: CTR. Banners? Basically worthless. Our CTR on standard 468x60's is a tiny fraction of a percent. We have to serve thousands of them to match the CTR or a single good interstitial.

    So yeah. They suck. I agree. (Publishers surf the web too). But as log as people click on them, we have little choice in this era of plunging CPMs.

    And for all those people who beg for "tasteful" ads that are unobtrusive: Nobody clicks on those either.

    And don't even get me started on the idiocy of subscriptions. The "I want everything free" generation won't pay. Period.

    The web is increasingly CPC. You can't have unobtrusive, minimal ads and a viable web economy.

  37. Maybe I just don't "get it" by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I don't really even understand the app ecosystem.

    It used to be we'd need to run a word-processor program to edit text.
    A spreadsheet to manage numeric data.
    An encyclopedia program to see images and text together.
    Hell we even needed a 'website editor' to do that.

    Now, ostensibly, we have a single browser on which I can do basic wordprocessing and spreadsheet work through google docs, edit websites, play fairly sophisticated games....all through the same browser.

    Yet, on my phone I have 150 different goddamned apps, each for some teeny little function that someone feels they can 'deliver' better to me than the good old browser (yes, I'm looking at you BBC and NPR apps, for example).

    Isn't the POINT of the internet browser and HTML concept a sort of 'Swiss Army Knife' of applications, meaning that it's the website's job to deliver content to the browser so that we don't need a separate "program" for every single stupid thing we're trying to do online? Wouldn't this seem to be a natural point of efficiency that would be especially useful in the power/resource constrained environment of a smartphone?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Maybe I just don't "get it" by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Now, ostensibly, we have a single browser on which I can do basic wordprocessing and spreadsheet work through google docs, edit websites, play fairly sophisticated games....all through the same browser.

      Google Docs is an app whether it's running natively under Android or from inside Chrome. The browser doesn't replace any apps; it's just another platform for apps to run on—one with a lot of historical baggage, overhead, and limitations compared to the native APIs. It's good to provide a mobile-optimized web site rather than requiring visitors to install an app, but a native app will always have the potential for more sophisticated integration, in terms of both functionality and the native look-and-feel of the host operating system.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  38. Not serving me by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Tapatalk is one of the most common, and seems to me to prove this point:

    The mobile app you are being offered doesn't improve your experience as much as it does the app publisher's revenue. Apps will capture your data, contacts, and history on your mobile when better than your browser.

    Apps will act as gateways for other apps, eventually leading to downloading something nasty without your knowledge, or masquerading as something benign.

    Apps will force you into a mobile view, like it or not. Good for the site, bad when your mobile is a 10" tablet that shows you a fabulous desktop render.

    I abandon them 100% of the time, so far.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  39. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still not downmoded...

  40. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apples and oranges. ABP serves its own purpose which, while similar, is not the same.

    Now, answer me this. Can your hosts file block something only in a specific app, such as the browser, but nothing else?

  41. Interstitial, eh ? by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize that "shit modal window that I have to close to read what I actually came to this web page for" had a name.

    I knew all those years of reading slashdot would pay off eventually.

  42. Nuke Anything (extension) by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Try it : it can get rid of overlay shit, including ribbons (top AND bottom) that halve your viewing space if you're on a short display.
    That's on desktop though (Firefox). On mobile, if it exists, I don't know how you're supposed to right click on an element.

    There's even one website that says "your mercy period has ended" (or whatever) after reading one article, and I'm supposed to log in. But the article is there under a pile of overlays, including a "greys out" one.

  43. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Click the link I posted here moron. It is downmodded so learn to read http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  44. I close the page immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any page that does this to me is immediately closed & never returned to.

  45. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Web was fine and functioned better before you monetized it. Your ads also infested us with your Open Bid Ads that malware makers misuse! Sites doing this interstital bs will lose users like mad and you see that stated repeatedly all over this page. Get off your high horse and realize something: The web has many websites offering the same content on the same subjects. No 1 site owns it. You have competition who won't use interstital popups and they'll get the viewership sites doing popups or interstitals will lose due to their being many sites on the same topics and yes same news. You don't own news or ideas.

    1. Re:BS by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If the latter part is true then you would not need to post it. The reality is that people do not care - some even profess to like ads. I, personally, have enough compute power to block them and many interests so I needn't deal with obtrusive sites. Most people just do not care. The minority does not rule the masses and this, the internet, is one place where that holds true.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  46. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to see ads anywhere. Ads infect us. Ads slow us down stealing bandwidth we pay for monthly.

  47. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you answer apk's questions here instead http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ? It's because he's right as to why you avoid it.

  48. Re:But interstitials work. Don't hate the game. by jcr · · Score: 1

    If you can't stay in business without irritating your readers, then fuck you: you should go out of business.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  49. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more + 'souled-out' by ihtoit · · Score: 0

    because he's fucking spammy in the way he asks. I am NOT interested in his funky hosts file manager, I'm using a tool that does what I WANT IT TO DO. I have 8GB of memory and two cores in this system, you really think I give a flying fuck at something that's using less than 1% of the total available resources?? Oh, lemme guess, APK, you're saving up to be Jewish?

    Too soon?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  50. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    because it's copypasta spam.

    Thank you, come again. Or better yet, don't.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  51. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    oh fuck off already.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  52. AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  53. AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  54. JS-only sites by tepples · · Score: 1

    Install NoScript, and a lot of Blogspot blogs (such as the featured article) will just show the spinning gears GIF forever until you whitelist the site, at which point the crap returns.

    1. Re:JS-only sites by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ghostery is your friend. Disconnect is also good. Both is better. Both can be done with uMatrix but that is a bit harder to configure and use (it takes a while to get things whitelisted). I prefer the uMatrix route personally.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  55. Old pop-ups were easier to block by tepples · · Score: 1

    We have one: it's basically a pop-up.

    It behaves like one in every way, just the mechanics of how it's displayed is different...so maybe browsers need to dust off their 'pop-up blocker' option code and update it to block these damn things too?

    The difference in mechanics makes all the difference. Pop-up blockers could define a pop-up as a call to window.open without a click event below it in the call stack. Showing an in-page pop-up is just changing the visibility of an HTML element, and there are plenty of legit reasons to do that. To work around that, you'd have to put JavaScript on a whitelist; good luck managing such a whitelist on a 4" screen.

  56. Pinterest, Chicago Tribune, CPALead, Google Survey by tepples · · Score: 1

    (Some of them don't even have the "X" corner icon. You have to choose one of the presented links to close.)

    Such as Pinterest ("There's more to see..."), Chicago Tribune, and any site using CPALead ("Please complete a survey to unlock this page") or Google Consumer Surveys ("Answer a question to continue reading this page"). Unfortunately, Google Search hasn't been good at demoting sites using these.

  57. It's about physical size by tepples · · Score: 1

    A 1024x600 pixel netbook's screen is still physically larger than those phones. To actually read text on those without changing the layout, you'd need a magnifying glass. This is why the web browsers on these devices tend to interpret CSS 1px as 1.5, 2, or 3 actual pixels.

  58. Cap by tepples · · Score: 1

    Start using my cell phone's data plan to download content for offline access when, because it's a cell phone, offline is 'rare'

    How is the time between when you have used up the 2 GB quota and the end of the billing month "rare"?

    1. Re:Cap by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      How is the time between when you have used up the 2 GB quota and the end of the billing month "rare"?

      I'm in wifi enough that I don't hit my cap much. But I am hella interested in any application that's sucking down data.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  59. 128 different apps by tepples · · Score: 1

    Yes, and how many of those apps ask for a copy of your address book ? I don't mind sharing if needed for a function, web privacy being a lost cause, but if you want to d/l my 5000 plus contact professional contact list, uh, NO.

    Some people want to use a function that requires location; others don't. Some people want to use a function that requires the address book; others don't. If there are seven different permissions that can be used by an optional function, do you expect the developer to make 2^7 = 128 different apps, one for each specific combination of optional functions?

  60. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  61. Re:Hosts & AdBlock block ads, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure my program can - you can instruct it to enable or disable the hosts file as you wish from its trayicon

    Will it do so automatically with no user intervention? Because ABP by its very nature does. Also, how often is your list of advertisers updated? The lists I use in ABP update every day. Where do you get your lists from? ABP pulls lists from anywhere that I want, or I can use my own.

  62. Re:I merely state facts you can't prove wrong by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    I've never dropped a mod point, whatever that is, in my life. This is my only account. So get yourself a fucking UID so I can block your arse.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  63. Facts on hosts superiority... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adblock doesn't do its job due to bribery. ClarityRay detects it making it useless. It eats RAM like a pig. Hosts do the job better and more efficiently and they do far more for speed, security, reliability, and even anonymity. The lists of all it blocks (far more than just ads but many types of online threats as well which "almostALLAdsBlocked" doesn't do @ all) is updated daily (sometimes more) from 10 reputable security community sources (which also recommend and host my program) and users EASILY control it (simple single text file entry, using something you already have natively, vs. bolting on more useless cpu + ram consumption in SLOWER USERMODE vs. hosts in kernelmode, increasing messagepassing overheads as well in browsers).

    * Face facts: AdBlock's WEAK & INFERIOR + 'SOULED-OUT" as well & can't match up with hosts on MANY levels...

    APK

    P.S.=> That's a short synopsis of what you doubtless paid off sockpuppets "adblock fans" can NEVER get the best of me on... & you KNOW it - after all: Look @ the results here - just downmods of my posts (no biggie - I have no limits on posts and just post them again until you FOOLS run dry of your bogus modpoints & like hosts do? I win... easily, on ALL fronts)... apk

  64. Who're you bullshitting? Answer = yourself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of you fools can disprove this & you know it http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Just like "almostALLAdsBlocked"? You're worthless, & weak... apk

  65. I merely state facts you can't prove wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    (LMAO @ U, 7 digit sockpuppet fool for a BLATANTLY INFERIOR COMPETITOR obviously!)

    * It's just (& you're MAKING me have to say it you know) too simple dusting dolts like you... it really is.

    THIS?

    This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'... thanks for being so transparently stupid & obvious as well as technically weak unable to prove my points of fact on hosts superiority wrong...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep blowing your effete 'modpoints' on my posts - you'll run out, I never do in being able to post here... apk

  66. AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  67. Hosts & AdBlock block ads, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: ABP's bribed not to by default http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    So what's this "apples to oranges" bullshit you're attempting to feed us here?

    HOWEVER:

    Hosts are "apples to oranges" in OTHER regards though which I posted since hosts DO FAR MORE for speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity from a SINGLE FILE and they do it using far less CPU + RAM than AlmostAllAdsBlocked does... & there's NO denying it.

    DOWNMOD THIS ALL DAY IF YOU WISH - IT'S MERELY DOCUMENTED FACTS YOU'RE VAINLY TRYING TO HIDE WITH YOUR EFFETE MODPOINTS so keep blowing them - you'll run dry of them, & I repost and YOU LOSE, fool... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Sure my program can - you can instruct it to enable or disable the hosts file as you wish from its trayicon (if you leave it resident there, since it protects the hosts file from corruption while it runs)... so, guess what? You FAIL... apk

  68. AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ... apk

  69. LMAO @ U: "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    (LMAO @ U, 7 digit sockpuppet fool for a BLATANTLY INFERIOR COMPETITOR obviously!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep blowing your effete 'modpoints' on my posts - you'll run out, I never do in being able to post here... apk

  70. Because of holes in browser support by tepples · · Score: 1

    Isn't the POINT of the internet browser and HTML concept a sort of 'Swiss Army Knife' of applications, meaning that it's the website's job to deliver content to the browser so that we don't need a separate "program" for every single stupid thing we're trying to do online?

    In theory, that's the point. In practice, the web browser included with Windows (Internet Explorer), OS X (Safari), and iOS (Safari) has tended to lack support for key web standards. For example, the latest version of Internet Explorer for the oldest supported version of Windows didn't support most HTML5 features until April 2014, when support for Windows XP was ended, and it won't support WebGL until April 2017, when Microsoft plans to end support for Windows Vista. Safari for iOS didn't support photo and video uploads through the browser prior to iOS 6 nor WebGL prior to iOS 8. A lot of browsers still lack support for, say, plugged-in USB joysticks. For anything that the user's browser doesn't support and which cannot be polyfilled efficiently if at all, the user will need to install a native app.

  71. I'm not the only one saying it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But the web can run just fine without third-party ads." - by Animats (122034) on Friday January 04, 2013 @07:28PM (#42482289)

    FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    See subject: minority advertisers don't rule & I stated truth the web was fine before monetization. I've been on it since 1984 (yes, using Gopher's, FTP, etc. on *NIX & VAX systems in midranges) & I KNOW SO as yes, I was there (on the web, specifically, since 1994 @ home @ least ontop of the above decade++ before it)... as does Animats above (& he's fairly well respected "around these parts").

    APK

    P.S.=> I know you know what you're doing in slicing out ads that infect you & steal bandwidth you paid out for monthly - problem is, MANY still don't... & "therein lies the problem", or rather PROBLEMS (due to infestations coming from ads & essentially stealing your MONEY too)... apk VAX systems in midranges)

  72. ihtoit: when you manage validly technically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Disprove my points on hosts vs. AdBlock-> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... instead of your bogus downmods to try to "hide" my posts (which everyone here sees anyhow, since most all here browse WELL below the stupid 'default moderation threshold') ?

    THEN, you'd have made SOME kind of progress...

    (... but, your off topic b.s. is only showing people how inferior you & yours are vs. myself... lol!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I love this game - why? YOU can't win... I always do, lmao - you downmod my posts for NO GOOD REASON on a technical level?? I just repost - NO LIMITS on posts here (unlike other ac posters)... apk

  73. gweihir, nobody pays attention to you after this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more - a MERE TECHIE MENIAL @ best/most!

    (FACT: Minus coders like myself, you TECHIE or NETWORK ADMIN MENIALS ARE HELPLESS - just as you've SHOWN yourself to be in that link above!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk