Why Your Pop-Up Blocker Doesn't Work Anymore 653
An anonymous reader writes "If you've noticed that pop-up ad windows seem to have made an unwelcome return into your life, it's because they're not using the same easily blockable technology as before. The Adimpact system uses DHTML to annoy you, and there's no immediate prospect of a solution."
Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost completely devoid of content.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplest, and most reasonable content would be:
If people are blocking popups, and you try to force upon them a popup advertisement, you are probably being counterproductive to your cause, and are a complete RETARD.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Funny)
And likewise if your content is residing on my harddrive then you are squatting on my property and must pay me rent.
(I wonder how much more surreal we can make this? ;D)
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I sort of agree with the sentiment as in - I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think you're "stealing" anything if you block or ignore the ad any more than you're stealing if you mute the commercials or get up to go to the bathroom when you're watching TV.
Since there's absolutely no content whatsoever in the linked "article", I can't figure out for sure what they're talking about, but I think they're referring to those floating "window within a window" advertisements that show up entirely within a page's browser frame. If so, I'm not even sure calling them "pop-ups" is fair, since the page author is still respecting my "space". Pop-up windows were legitimately evil, because those windows would pop up more windows when you tried to close them and you would end up spending 10 minutes trying to shut the damned things off. If some website wants to pop up a "window" inside its own window and run an ad for a couple of seconds, I really don't see the problem; I sit through the things as a courtesy to whoever provided the content. If I don't like the ad, I can close the browser (or even just the tab), and it all goes away.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Funny)
and are a complete RETARD.
Or maybe you're just working in marketing
I thought the second was a subset of the first.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Interesting)
50's and 60's? As 4th graders in 1977 we collected cans by the side of the road to be melted down from all over town. I even found a set of baskets to bolt onto my bike - we had a magnet and on one side we would put the old steel cans and on the other side we'd put the new aluminum cans. Inevitably there'd be more aluminium cans as the summer wore on and we'd be upset because steel cans were worth a whole lot more than aluminum ones back then. You could also sometimes tell just by looking at the pull tab - this was before the pop top - they had different shapes. I earned a ton of money picking up cans to supplement my paper route.
Kids these days have no idea - my kids want an allowance for emptying the friggin' dishwasher and walking the dog. Sheesh. I know as parents we don't make it easy for them, hell I was roaming a 10 mile radius of suburbia at that time, and I hardly ever lose sight of my kids today.
Sorry. Can you please get off my lawn now?
Re:Great article (Score:4, Informative)
Popups are why I hesitate to go to weather.com
If you're in the US, use weather.gov It's where weather.com and local broadcasters get their weather data from anyway.
No, they don't. Weather.com, the web presence of "The Weather Channel", has their own forecasters, and they're seldom as accurate as the NOAA. But at least they're not as bad as AccuWeather.com, which is one of the companies that sells forecasts to local TV stations.
weather.gov [weather.gov] may not be a pretty site, but it rocks in terms of usability and accuracy of the data. And I already paid for it from my taxes!
Re:Great article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great article (Score:5, Informative)
Adblock is great for fine-grained filtering of sites. I use it fairly sparingly, since I maintain a large hosts file to kill traffic with any server I find to be suspect. NoScript works, but I just find it too intrusive to be my weapon of choice. But my combo kills nearly all traffic I don't want to see...
Re:Great article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great article (Score:4, Interesting)
That pretty much defines intruding on my experience.
I still use it though because I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't install it on my parents' computer.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you meant to say was "Many web designers count on Javascript for BASIC functionality such as layout, menus, and following links these days. Turning off Javascript neuters almost every site you browse."
Don't blame NoScript for that problem. Blame sloppy developers that use JavaScript for duties that they shouldn't.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Informative)
Javascript IS basic functionality. Welcome to 1990.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. You have it backwards.
If I browse to a Web site I haven't seen before and suddenly find my desktop (and other programs) covered by a barrage of pop-up ads, that is intruding on my experience. Injecting code into my browser in an attempt to get it to reject right-mouse clicks -- that is intruding on my experience.
The computer is mine, not yours. It obeys my commands, not yours. If you want it to run some of your code, then you're first going to have to convince me to let you. And you do that by earning my trust and not treating my browser and desktop like your own private playground. NoScript lets me enforce this policy, and it clearly exposes the children who won't play by the rules. Google.com has earned my trust (Google-analytics.com, however, has not.)
If your site doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, your site is broken. Period, end of chapter. This is not a secret, and it is not something new. This has always been the case. (AJAX-heavy sites complicate this only slightly -- you should clearly explain what's not working and why (I'm looking at you, OKCupid...).)
And while we're about it -- Have you ever clicked on that little "S" in the corner to reveal a skyscraper of 15 different domains trying to execute JavaScript on your machine? Does this bother you even slightly? Why or why not?
Schwab
Re:Great article (Score:4, Interesting)
If your site doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, your site is broken. Period, end of chapter.
I don't know about that. Ten years ago, when Javascript implementations were spotty, buggy, and at times incompatible, I'd probably agree. But nowadays I'd consider having a working Javascript implementation just about as important in browser selection as standards-compliant HTML and CSS support.
(On a side note, I'd also no longer consider a site that doesn't work properly without CSS to be broken. Lynx can bite me.)
Re:Great article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to Cancel or Allow on every site...?
I do realize that it learns what you tell it learn, but it's big internet out there.
I suppose it's fairly good if you don't visit a large number of sites, but if you do RTFA consistently it's a real PITA.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the problem I found - if I have to test it, what is the point of blocking it in the first place? OK, it can stop cross-site attacks in their tracks, but if the bad code is hosted on the server I chose to visit, it's game over anyway. I suppose there is more protection offered by NoScript around what can be run but ultimately if I can't sandbox the code that is about to fire, why am I bothering at all? I can take care by other means - most malware is still of the "Would you like to install this virus?" ilk. It's useful in specific situations like going to visit some known dodgy sites (but maybe do that in a VM anyway...) For everyday usage it quickly becomes tiresome.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>How is NoScript instrusive? You set it to block by default, and if you hit a site that doesn't work correctly, test it with the "Temporarily allow..." option
I call that intrusive, or at the very least, a pain in the ass. I'm constantly having to select "allow" for sites I visit, and I've grown tired of it. NoScript is now disabled on my browser, except for when I'm visiting porn sites which are often dangerous.
As for pop-up ads, the alternative is that I'd have to pay $5 or $10 a month for accessing ad-free websites, and I can't afford ~$200/month worth of website subscriptions. I'd rather take the ads, and get my entertainment for free.
Re:You answer your own question (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a number of sites I go to that have these damn click to pop ads, I'd still like to visit the site but without the ads. If I have to turn off NoScript anyway, it's gained me nothing.
Most sites don't host the script for their own ads, rather they use a third party script to do so. In most cases you can unblock a site, but still leave the ad providers site blocked. One of the replies to my original comment also reminded me of the fact that a while ago I modified my hosts file to black-hole all of the worst offenders with regards to ads/malware, and I run eDexter to serve up blank image files in their place.
/., but blocks all the ads.
Just as an example, right now I've got slashdot.org allowed, but doubleclick.net and google-analytics.com blocked, which allows me to use the comments and such on
Re:Great article (Score:5, Informative)
To make NoScript less intrusive, try configuration options. For example, 'temp allow top-level sites by default' is good for seeing most of what you want, without seeing what you don't (ad content from another site). Of course, more risky for users blindly following pr0n links to sites where even the top level is dangerous.
But then again, I'm sure you don't do that, eh?
While we're on the subject, Redirect Remover is worth a look too...
Re:Great article (Score:5, Funny)
Then how do you pay for the content? Do you send the site owner checks directly?
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because they've chosen a flawed business model, doesn't mean they are entitled to protection to ensure it works.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great article (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I've taken the view with the sites I manage that either a user is benefiting the site or not. In the case of adblocking users this means that I either think that referrals from them justify allowing them anyway, or as in most cases I block them.
I've had a couple of angry emails from users who were blocked for adblocking, but I just ignore them. I run sites as a hobby, and if someone visits my site it costs me money, if I put adverts up and a person doesn't want to view adverts then I don't want them using my bandwidth.
Re:Great article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're assuming that I am a target for online advertising. Because the ads are irrelevant to me, they're better off saving bandwidth and showing them to someone else. Besides, your logic would dictate that because I press the mute button (or skip them all together!) during commercials, that I should now start having to pay for OTA transmissions.
Re:Great article (Score:5, Insightful)
So you never spend money? Nor talk to anyone else about any product, ever?
I don't quite see how it relates to allowing hordes of salesmen into your house and listening to their endless pitches (if we equate your desktop with your house.) I personally spend money, of course, and talk about products, but I do that when I want it, not when someone else decides that for me.
I suspect you really have no idea how many times a day some brand is imprinting itself on you.
I suspect the GP does have an idea, and that's why he blocks everything that deserves it. My mind belongs to me, not to advertisers, and I decide what I allow to imprint on it. In my browsers everything ad-related is blocked by default; it's a favor to advertisers too because my browsers don't download stuff that is useless to me.
Besides, "brand imprinting" is harmful to your purchasing choices because you often decide not because the product is good but because it is made by a company that you recognize. This is unreasonable. Compare technical specs, read reviews - that's what you need to do, not to look for a brand name.
Re:Great article (Score:4, Insightful)
Then how do you pay for the content? Do you send the site owner checks directly?
About as often as I send checks to the TV networks when I skip their commercials.
I tried to make a first post... (Score:5, Funny)
...but I got so distracted with those shiny X10 pop-up ads.
That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Informative)
Ubuntu, NoScript and ABP. I went to the Adimpact website, no pop-up visible.
"Unblockable"...like the Titanic was unsinkable.
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No popup for me, but I don't allow Slashdot to run scripts!
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, is that a free anonymous proxy?
http://www.adimpact.com/cgi-bin/webapp/nph-demo.cgi/000000A/http/google.com/ [adimpact.com]
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Been using always... one of the first things I do when I install a new Firefox is get Adblock Plus and NoScript (which is really annoying in and of itself, but that's another story).
So when I saw this thread I was like "I didn't notice anything lately."
NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:3, Insightful)
NoScript (which is really annoying in and of itself, but that's another story).
You got that right! I removed 'NoScript'. Every, and I mean every, stinking website I went to had most of their content dependent on scripts. So, I had to constantly click on allow for this time, or for this page, etc... And many times, even after enabling scripts for that page, they still wouldn't run. Very few websites didn't have that problem. Scripts are just too ubiquitous to block.
Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:5, Informative)
Why was he moderated "FlameBait?"
I think we need more meta-moderation, and people that get unmodded ought to get fewer mod privileges (if that's not already how it works). Unbelievable.
Anyway, I don't disable it... what annoys me is every few days there's an "update" whose sole purpose, IMO, is to keep NoScript at the top of the popularity list, and then when you do upgrade, it automatically loads the NoScript page in Firefox when it finally starts up. I often just click to skip installing the upgrade, but that gets tedious, too.
I very rarely encounter pages where it's not obvious which script I need to allow, although it certainly does happen.
Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a little parable. When I was a child, I lived in the country and my family never locked the front door of our house. Now I live in a multi-family home in the city and every time I go out, I lock both the door to my home and the door to the building. Man, I tell you, it is a pain in the neck to have to fumble for my keys every time I want to go inside my home. I still think it beats leaving the door open.
It boils down to whether you think anything bad will happen if you leave your door open. I consider a popup ad to be "something bad," and I am well aware there are also far worse things a script can do to you.
Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of your house, the hassle of locking up every day is small compared to the hassle of having everything you own stolen.
In the case of ads vs Noscript, many people feel the cure is almost as much of a hassle as the disease.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. At first you will have to allow sites all the time, but once you set it up for the sites you commonly visit, you won't have much of a problem. Usually it's just a matter of checking the noscript button when a new site doesn't work, then enabling one or two domains once, and then never again for the site.
Don't enable per-page, that IS more annoying than it's worth. Unless you're on geocities or some other large hosting provider... but AFAIK most of those at least give you a subdomain now (goog
Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:4, Informative)
Popups? (Score:5, Informative)
What popups?
This mostly popup free browsing experience brought to you by the makers of Firefox and NoScript.
Re:Popups? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Popups? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If no script is too restrictive for you,, (and it can very easily break sensitive transactions that port you from one domain to another,) then I suggest you also try yesscript. It's a blacklist script blocker rather than a whitelist.
There is no problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
DHTML popups are no big deal at all. They don't open a new window. They don't "pop under". They don't re-open when you try to close them...
The solution to them is simple and already implemented. Close the tab, and never return to that site again. Ever.
Problem solved.
Re:There is no problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
That way there is a running total of customers lost due to stupid marketing.
Re:There is no problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why companies think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.. I have no idea.
"Unblockable" (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, I have the answer...keep Javascript disabled for websites that do not really need it! Right now, I have Javascript enabled for...3 websites, all of which are trusted sites from either my job or my school. Popup free browsing, and incidentally, pages use less CPU time.
Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.
Re:"Unblockable" (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.
WE (as in users) don't need Javascript. I've been following the trends on more and more script code on websites for years now. If you really look at it most of the code is used to a) gather data about the user or b) display messages and ads to the user. There is a smaller category c) running useful code (like flash video players, online apps etc.).
The reality is that many companies base their revenue streams on these ad systems which include addthis, google-analytics and so forth. By simply blocking these you'll have a hassle free surfing experience but will have to occasionally activate some stuff to make your site work (which at times can be quite tedious finding out which one of the fifteen cryptic script hosters is responsible for the video player itself).
I sometimes worry if I deprive my sites of their ad revenue by blocking these shitty ads but then again I never voluntarily clicked, let alone bought something from, a banner or popup ad. As long as there are blinking, sound playing, window resizing, non-closable, code-executing messages that want to bum some attention I will block them. Firefox, Noscript. No more problems. I hate surfing on machines without those installed.
I tried Google Chrome last week... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Bloody hell", I thought, is that what the web looks like?
Then I went back to Firefox with AdBlock/NoScript.
Do not want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I tried Google Chrome last week... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Unblockable" (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need Javascript. I want to provide a more feature rich interface than HTML by itself provides. If you're not interested, then I am not angry with you. You can ignore what I have to offer, and I can accept that you're just not interested. I really don't care whether you look at it or not; in the long run, you're such an infinitesimal minority who is part of the unique overlap of a: having the technical knowledge to be able to equate the misuse of DHTML on other sites to the usage of JavaScript within browsers in general and b: having the personal distaste for such misuse to such a degree that you would eschew the primary building block (JS) altogether except for a few very specific instances.
To whit: I'm not going to cry about 0.00001% lost traffic, and more surprisingly, neither are my customers when I explain to them the pitfalls of making "web applications" with JavaScript. When I tell them they may lose a few geeks who are ideologically opposed to the use of JS in their "webapp", they basically just laugh and call you a retard.
(Note: I don't feel you're a retard; I get fired up over stuff like this too, usually. For me, this isn't a hot button issue, but I have other ones and I'm sure people call me a retard for feeling that way also).
Long story short: people want an application delivery mechanism that doesn't require a software install, update management, etc, and they're trying to make browsers be that mechanism. If you are really that against it, find a way of distributing that mechanism to every computer currently using the web, and then I can try convincing people that they should use that rather than fitting it into a browser. But until your mechanism reaches every computer a browser currently reaches, they aren't going to bite. And at the end of the day, I'm working to support my family, so if the customer really wants a "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience", then I'm going to give that to them.
Sorry :(
Re:"Unblockable" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in your world JavaScript, CSS2, and XHTML Strict were "ignoring standards".
Web Application does not necessarily require ActiveX, you know.
The smart phone platform presents some very interesting problems of its own. In my opinion, your web application as a whole should not be tailored to the phone; the cost of making your entire application readable and usable for a touch screen phone would cost more than just reproducing the front-end for a smart-phone-only audience.
A significant problem with smart phones are the differences between touch screen and non-touch-screen user interfaces, and trying to take advantage of the ways each works. The advent of the iPhone really brought a different (from traditional web/desktop) way of looking at UI development for smart phones, and people have been doing some very impressive things as a result. I don't think you try to have your "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience" (whatever that means) work the same on both a smart phone and a PC. This seems to be too diverse of UI domains to use the same View code for each without falling into the "jack of all trades, master of none" situation.
I'm not entirely sure about the rest of your post, as it doesn't seem like you understand in the slightest what a "web application" currently means. It's simply a web page that offers application-like functionality to its users. If you can add UI enhancements with JavaScript and DHTML, you can make a better usability experience for the vast majority of people. If your a significant portion of your target audience would be accessing it via a Smart Phone, you need to write two sets of presentation logic and associated views while maintaining the core business logic as being the same for either. But this diatribe about IE is simply you not having a fucking clue about what I am even talking about. You apparently hear "web application" and think an ActiveX nightmare, eschewing all standards at every moment.
I validate each and every page, thanks. I test in 5 different browsers; Safari, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, IE 7, and IE6. I will soon be adding IE 8 to the mix. I have to write my own share of IE hax, and I, too, am fucking sick of it. I wouldn't piss on the developers of IE 6 (and 7) if they were on fire, though I'd uncork on the IE 8 development team. They still have a long fucking way to go before I don't despise their very existence, too.
But none of that changes a single bit of what I said.
In conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about, you threw up a strawman and shot it down, and I dub thee Lord High Asshat of Douchebaggia.
(It's a rockin' title. Wear it with pride.)
Re:"Unblockable" (Score:4, Interesting)
Strawman after strawman, and complete lack of comprehension on your part as to the point.
The point, my arrogant friend, is that JavaScript is used for more than simply popping up advertisements. As a contractor, many of my clients wish to give their web pages more of an "application" feel to them. For the sorts of features they explicitly request, the vast majority of them require the use of, at minimum, JavaScript, if not some other plugin. As I'm not a fan of Flash or ActionScript, I focus most of my efforts on JavaScript. If I can get away with some sort of visual hoopajoop with CSS, believe me, I use CSS. JS is to be used minimally.
Your basic argument is that, because JavaScript is in some cases used for evil, no one should ever attempt to use it for any other purpose, much like knives, guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, roller coasters, sex, marriage, or brownies. My argument is that that makes you a fucking retard for not realizing that all of those can be used in a completely legitimate way if the time and the space require it.
I further went on to say that if the use of these bothers you so much, you can block them (in the case of JavaScript), or walk away (in the others). Neither I nor my customers care about that minimal loss when weighed against their perception of gain.
Now, if my client said "don't use JavaScript, Flash, Quicktime, and don't you dare write a single IE specific CSS hack - this has to be 100% standards compliant!", then believe me, I'd be fine with that too.
The point I'm making is that if JS is so offensive to you, block it. We don't fucking care. We're going to continue using it, and continue requiring it, and if you don't like it you can leave, because, as I reiterate, we don't fucking care.
Blocking it (Score:5, Insightful)
I found it much less intrusive once every host in the adimpact.com domain started serving up 404 Not Found for all pages.
DNS is your friend, especially when your nameserver is declared a master for that domain and the zonefile contains a wildcard record pointing all names to the IP address of your own dedicated nothing-there Web server.
I hadn't noticed (Score:3, Informative)
There is a way to block them w/ disabling script (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately it would be an arms race of sorts, similar to virus definitions... requiring dom scripting to identify a particular class or id or attribute or some other unique element in the ad (possibly the image src which means it could piggy back on ad-blockers already in use)...
The idea is to use the DOM to walk back up from the unique Ad element to the containing div or divs, then turn them off or delete them.
Another way would be to identify the offending function in the script and set it to return false or something similar.
Someone could play around with greasemonkey or YUI anywhere and create a sample distribution...
I don't personally go to enough sites that do this to make the effort, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the class.
Articles like this ... (Score:5, Informative)
... are like free endorsements for Firefox + adblock plus + NoScript + ... some other extensions.
The more they keep annoying users, the more popular the solution becomes.
What's the big deal ? (Score:4, Informative)
Use flash blocker.
Also Opera has a facility to easily block a feed. Right click, click on the offending item, click done. you're done.
How many sources does this company have? Unless they have a lot, their adds are gone.
I don't know if FF has this or not ...
Sorta related: Yahoo mail got worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Just this week Yahoo mail started serving up ads that pop up an annoying window every time your mouse passes over it. I hope Yahoo loses a lot of market share over this. I know it was the impetus I needed to switch over to Google mail. Of course Yahoo doesn't offer mail forwarding so you lose your email address. Serves me right for ever using a provider that doesn't make it possible to migrate away.
Basics of DHTML popups (Score:5, Informative)
Check out http://dhtmlpopups.webarticles.org/ [webarticles.org] for a quick set of examples of these.
It looks like a bit of experimentation could yeild a reasonably reliable greasemonkey script to kill these when not click initated.
HOSTS file FTW! (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using a hosts file since around 2003. It blocks out all those ads, popups, spyware,adware, stops alot of virii from calling home, you name it. I scan my computer about once a month, and I haven't had any of the 'serious outbreaks' of adware like all my friends. They all swear by their software programs to block it(ultimately, they always end up reformatting when they cant quite get rid of them all) but my solution uses no resources and doesn't require 'scanning' for them regularly.
I use it on my parent's computer and only update it once a year at Christmas. Even with only updating once a year they haven't gotten any adware/spyware yet, and it's been 3 years.
I highly recommend it. Give it a try, there's nothing to lose but the crapware.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
Re:HOSTS file FTW! (Score:4, Insightful)
This really is the best method. Its cross-platform and no matter what strategies the ad people try, I'm still blocking their server. Not to mention ad servers are a security risk. Most "Antivirus 2009" infections are from compromised ad servers delivering fake ads for the malware. These malware ads look a lot more legitimate when served up by forbes.com.
Just block them wholesale. Perhaps they will learn that we dont want overlays and popups. A simple ad that targets me really is a lot more effective than these tricks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note, I haven't used either of those programs in about 3 years, I have no idea if they still exist.
to those who don't use javascript or flash: (Score:5, Insightful)
this "solution" to the return of pop ups is of course akin to curing your hangnail by cutting off your foot
are you familiar with the phenomenon of the guy who doesn't own a television, and must remind every stranger he meets of this fact, constantly? if you look at the comments here, this article seems to have brought out the similarly quirky "look at me! i don't use javascript! i don't use flash!" brigade
ok, so you are proud of your bare html existence. good for you
but you might have noticed that the internet has evolved since 1994, and technologies, such as AJAX, are transforming the web browsing experience in GOOD ways, such as google maps. javascript is not merely cruft to make your anchor links animate. likewise, can you argue with the success and value of a site like youtube? which, by the way, works in flash?
javascript and flash are not in any way absolute negatives for the internet experience. they are merely useful tools whose usage is evolving, in good and bad ways. to disavow that obvious observation and just flat out block them does not make you wiser, it makes you an odd appendix of history. trumpeting your monklike ascetic internet existence doesn't add anything of value to the conversation, because, no, blocking javascript and flash is most definitely not the solution, really
when you announce that you don't use these technologies, all you show us is that you are indulging in some sort of odd attention-seeking disorder with a strange misplaced pride
Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: (Score:5, Informative)
It is actually quite interesting to see the number of cross site scripts that are called in lots of websites. So you have complete control over that. It is not flat blocking it out...
still not the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
are you familiar with the idiotic windows vista practice of asking you to approve every executeable before it runs? after awhile, the average user just mindlessly clicks "approve" and doesn't even read the warning. and this is perfectly appropriate behavior: its the boy who cried wolf. an alert at every false positive leads people to completely ignore the alert
likewise, noscript is a wonderful extension... for the odd power user who likes such finetuned control over the minutiae of his browsing experience,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, can you argue with the success and value of a site like youtube? which, by the way, works in flash?
I want a plugin for firefox that detects "hmm, this is flash... Oh, this is flash video! Remove flash, download *.flv in the background, insert embedded mplayer."
Then I'd dump flash faster than you can count to e^{i \pi} + 1.
Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: (Score:5, Informative)
Well, for some of us it's not a case of not using Flash or Javascript, but rather *us* deciding when and where we choose to allow it. I'll happily put up with the occasional ill-loaded page requiring Javascript/Flash enabling and reload (click on noscript icon in the status area and click on the servers I wish to allow, or allow all temporarily), rather than have to put up with the hideous clutter and tracking all over the web.
I have Javascript whitelisted for a quite a number of sites I regularly visit who put it to good use. I can also put up with letting certain semi-trusted organisations have information on what I'm doing on the site as well.
Having NoScript is perfectly sensible - particularly when performing a search on Google for example, and visiting random websites who could not only have malicious Javascript code, but could indeed just have slow-loading broken code.
Most websites load a lot faster (no matter how fast your system/net connection) without having to wait for scripts to load from random third-party ad sites.
where is the news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Vigliante justice (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like someone [adimpact.com] is in need of a few extra visitors.
Perhaps in the form of a distributed set of requests - that really shouldn't be denied - for service, but we surely shouldn't attack them.
Re:Won't be long (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just block adimpact.com in your /etc/hosts file (if you're smart enough). They want to sell it as a "hosted web application" and therein lies its vulnerability.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's in this (useful, but long) one:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
Re:Won't be long (Score:4, Informative)
Open it in notepad (or other basic text editor like EditPlus)
Under the line "127.0.0.1 localhost" add your own line that will be
127.0.0.1 porn.spam.com
Basically each new line will start with 127.0.0.1 and then tab and include the place you are want to block.
Recommendation 1: Backup the file before editing it.
Recommendation 2: Go line and look for hosts files people have put available on the web. Copy it and save it. I once had a hosts file that was about 2 megs in size. Considering it is plain text that was a LOT of sites it blocked. It was my own little slice of heaven...though I had to becareful, it blocked sites that I enjoyed (e.g. Netflix).
Re:Won't be long (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't it be better to use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1? The latter attempts to connect while the former doesn't bother.
No: [ietf.org]
While you are correct that using localhost for 'ad diversion' would hit a locally running web server, but at least you'd could have a log of your results. Just thinking of it, but wouldn't it be cool to see your own personal pictures/content instead of ads?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a solution to this "problem". Don't install Flash. Flash is evil. Flash must die [slashdot.org].
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash is indeed evil, but it's also necessary to get anything out of an increasing number of sites. The choice is basically live with the occasional Flash abuse or cut yourself off from an ever-growing amount of content on the web. Whether that additional content is worth the annoyance of the occasional Flash ad is a personal decision.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Informative)
Or install Firefox and the Flashblock extension, which blocks ALL Flash content until explicitly allowed (which can either be once or always for a particular site). Which is better than AdBlock's version, that lets you block Flash but makes you explicitly block rather than blanket-block. (Blanket-block is better because 90% or more of Flash content encountered is ads.)
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:4, Informative)
Or install Firefox and the Flashblock extension
No kidding... I was thinking "what popups?" when I read this. I run noscript, but same difference.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Flashblock is a no-nonsense tool that is dead-simple to configure. I had everyone I know install it after a number of flash vulnerabilities started cropping up, and I've heard no complaints.
I consider Flashblock + Firefox my "compromise" with the advertisers: I will submit to viewing ads to help them pay for content, so long as they are not Flash, and so long as they are not pop-up/under. Really, I do not find static images and text annoying at all, and if an advertiser makes an animated GIF that is too annoying, I can just press ESC.
But if the advertisers insist on using this crap evervwhere and pushing an arms race, I won't hesitate to upgrade to noscript (and everyone I know) and shut the door entirely. I hope they won't force me to do that, because then they would get zero money from my page views.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Informative)
I can attest personally to the power and convenience of Flashblock. It's simply a great system.
Upon installation (and a restart), Flashblock will replace all, ALL, flash components on every page with an empty, but clearly outlined box where the flash applet would have been. In this way, over all page layout is unaffected during the block.
At the center of this empty block, Flashblock puts a recognizable stylized "F" icon, which when hovered over, turns into a standard "Play" symbol. Personally, I think it should always be a play symbol, but that's just nit picking. After this icon is clicked, the flash applet, and only THAT applet, loads and begins just as it would have insisted on doing when, or even before the page was finished loading.
No more crazy ads. No more loud and obnoxious audio content. No more flash-bomb pages, slowing the system to a crawl, and/or crashing firefox. Admittedly, the crash problem still exists, but now you risk it only at your own behest. Normal use of flash, e.g. Youtube, is almost completely unaffected, and IMHO even improved by flashblock. The web page is cleanly and gracefully separated from the flash content, as it always should have been.
Flashblock is the first extension I download on any new firefox install. I highly recommend it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:4, Interesting)
Why give impressions? Nobody is paid off impressions for one, and also it would confuse the accuracy of advertising.
Also plenty of people, like myself, do not want to see ads period. We are well past the generational concept from previous generations of "you can buy our eyeballs". Answer is, you can't. I don't care if it's an ad I would actually want to see. I want to browse the web to find what I want.
Only type of "ad" I accept is browsing somethingawful's forums unregistered where they explicitly say Adbot. Also accepted are "click here to view our ads" ideas. However "PLEASE LOOK AT OUR SIGN IN CAPS" as a banner, does not deserve my eyes at all.
The deceptiveness of advertising on the web does not make it more effective. It's the head fake, that gives people a reason to view things. 100% of ads could be taken off the web and many sites would do just fine. Even google and doubleclick have other ways to garner profits. This is something many websites haven't wrapped their heads around. People may be tolerant, but it's really a waste of cash/time.
Google could truly help people make their own sites more relevant in comparison to what meta tags show up,etc aka: website consulting. I bet they already do this anyway. Ads as a market is something many of people are just waiting for it to become obsolete.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Insightful)
If a site relies on Flash to convey its message, I don't go to it. I was looking for a car repair shop after the latest moron hit me [slashdot.org] and one site was nearly unreachable because the front page was entirely Flash-based. Had it not been for a site map link, I would not have been able to see anything.
Nor is this the first time this has happened. I have come across several sites, including restaurants, who have an entirely Flash-based site. I don't bother going to them either online or offline because of this nonsense.
The ONLY exception I can see for using Flash is if you have a product which you want people to see all sides of and you have a short display of the product rotating.
I have said it before and will continue to say it: There is no reason to have an entirely Flash-based site. None. If people want to come back to your site for a specific reason, they can no longer bookmark a page to do so. If someone has eyesight issues and uses a screen-reader, you've locked them out.
As I said in my journal, Flash is the new blink tag.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Flash is going away any time soon. As someone who knows several web developers, I can tell you they love Flash because they don't have to code the page differently for different browsers.
The fact that it obfuscates your source code and animates things (makes them "flashy," if you will) are added bonuses that give the management and marketing departments a huge boner.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:4, Interesting)
they love Flash because they don't have to code the page differently for different browsers.
So instead they use Flash, which is -guaranteed- not to work in all browsers, especially mobile ones?
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Websites done in flash are useless. I have never seen an exception. I can't bookmark anything. I can't link to a specific page. I can't copy any text. I can't search. Navigation buttons don't work.
All so some idiot can have spiffy transition effects between pages.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead Bitch to the web master for failing to comply with either the U.S. ADA (americans with disabilities act)or the EU disabilities act if they're a commercial website. Works wonders and if they basically tell you to "Sod Off Sucker" then simply forward their reply to the appropriate authorities and prepare to inudate them with a federal/eu investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with not installing flash is that there are a ton of great games out there using flash, and a bunch of nice content sites like Youtube that use flash. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.
Re:Annoying but expected (Score:5, Funny)
Why not just telnet to port 80 and read the page as it streams across?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right.
I had to go to the website's ISP, get the webpage on paper tape, take it back to the computer room, type in the binary codes using only the 1's and 0's on a teletype machine and then read the content from the blinking lights on the front of a PDP-8/E. And when we were finished, the sysadmin would kill us and dance on our graves singing Hallelujah.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I like watching youtube vids...
I do too but I'd like them even more if they weren't Flash-based. Flash runs too slow on old computers.
News Flash (Score:5, Funny)
It has subtracts too!