Floaters are the New Pop-Ups 613
windowpain writes "A prior Slashdot article discussed the ever-increasing ability of pop-up ads to break through adblocking software. Now the New York Times (registration required) is reporting that pop-ups are pooped out, replaced by those annoying "floaters" that are even more resistant to conventional pop-up blocking software. From the article: 'Not to be confused with pop-up ads, which open new windows and clutter virtual desktops, these floaters, or overlays, or popovers (no one can agree on a name), can evade the pop-up blockers that many Web browsers have incorporated. In the last year, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, which collects and analyzes data on Web advertising, the frequency of these ads has risen markedly, by almost 32 percent from December 2003 to December 2004, while pop-ups in that period declined by 41 percent.'"
windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Rate of change correlation (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously... (Score:4, Interesting)
Same with iFrames (which is already implemented well in AdBlock)...
It's so obvious I'd be surprised if the functionality doesn't already exist.
I wish... (Score:5, Interesting)
A bit of courtesy from the advertisers and I am willing to watch it if it catches my fancy, but if they throw it in my face, they ain't getting anything but rage from me.
I don't mind them... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with popups wasn't the one new window.. It's playing Whack-A-Mole with the 32 pops spawned by that one.
Not effective anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Fax/printer spam (Score:3, Interesting)
With Opera it's not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if Fire Fox has this option but for those of you more involved with the project it would be a nice added feature.
Re:Floaters are not evil. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who Clicks On These? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about ads on TV - obviously, noone ever clicks those. People are just (passively) subjected to them while they wait for their favourite shows/movies/... to start/resume, and many will in fact use the break to do other things, or turn of the sound so they don't have to listen to the ads (I do that), or switch to another channel (my parents do that), or other such things.
Nevertheless, ads on TV are a big market, and more or less every major company uses them. So... why? The answer is that click-through rates, or, more generally, the "omgcool-I-need-to-have-this-right-now" response isn't neither realistic to expect nor important. What *is* important is exposure to the product, which *will* un/sub/pre-consciously influence you. Have you ever thought just *why* you buy a particular brand of pizza at the supermarket? Sure, you may say "I like this brand" etc., and that certainly plays a big role, too, but I think it's safe to say that advertising also does (not just for pizzas, of course, but for any product you buy). More often than not, the point of advertising is to make sure the people subjected to it know that the product or service even *exists*.
I miss those animated GIF ads (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy fix for all ads (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Enable popup blocking
3. Install Adblock [mozdev.org]
4. Install filter rule set [geocities.com] for Adblock.
Every now and then, Adblock lets an ad through, but you can just right-click it and select "block ad", which augments your filter rule set. Now a real killer feature for Adblock would be for it to somehow filter ad indirection pages, i.e. you go to a page but are indirected through a page with a giant ad. Currently that page will look mostly empty because Adblock blocks the giant banner, but maybe Adblock could be improved to auto-skip to the next page... which should be easy to find because it is the redirect URL.
Complain (Score:5, Interesting)
"I believe it would be in your companies best interest to institute a policy that your banner advertisments cannot make sounds unless a user is interacting with them.
You are currently running a banner add on your web site that is extremely anoying. It says "Swat the fly and get a free $250 gift certificate," and has a fly flying around and your mouse turns into a fly swatter when you mouse over it. The anoying thing is that it makes a buzzing sound even if you do not do anything.
Your web site auto refreshes at regular intervals. I usually leave my browser open on your site durig the day while I work and periodically check the headlines and read the articles. Imagine my surprise when, while I am working with my browser minimized, my computer suddenly begins to buzz. I use firefox for a browser, and usually have at least seven news sites open in tabs at once. It took me quite some time to find which site had an add that was playing the anoying buzzing sound.
Since I cannot prevent your site from auto refreshing, eventually that banner add will come back up. As a result, I am not going to be able to leave your site open today. That is a real shame because I relly enjoy your web site and read it daily. Unfortunately that annoying sound will drive me nuts and prevent me from getting my work accomplished.
Thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice and change your advertising policy."
This was their response:
"Thanks for writing. We've been deluged with complaints about this ad. It was served by a third party advertiser, and we're working to track it down and remove it. If it does crop up again in the future, please don't hesitate to email us right away."
I was really surprised at the response. I guess since they are a legitimate news site (gonna get flamed for that), they cannot afford to have their advertisers driving their readers away from the site. Still I sent a similar email to abcnews.com for a similar ad a couple of months ago and the response was the exact oposite. I did not save the email but they basically told me to screw myself.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The adverts are usually served up by third party advert servers and thus looking at the adblock list of blockable elements... just block all items that are not on the domain for the site you're looking at.
That takes care of 99% of floaters, popups, etc.
The real problem is the next stage of advert evolution, which will be when content providers still use third parties to sell and supply adverts, but start to act as proxies for the adverts.
When content providers are acting as proxies and adverts appear to come from the same domain and content management system as the content... then adverts will be VERY hard to block.
The prevalence of adblock is going to increasingly push companies towards such solutions.
They'll still need to monetise their sites, and whilst it used to be that they didn't care for a minority of people blocking adverts, when that is a fast growing minority and it's affecting their revenues... they will find ways around it.
Just as the DRM rules state that if you can see and hear it you can bypass DRM and copy it... maybe a rule should be created for adverts: If you can see or hear the content, then advertisers CAN find a way to make you see or hear advertisements.
games too (Score:5, Interesting)
Effective marketting through pain (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's just glance at the trends to see where they are going. With TV, they started with commercial spots which were actually convenient because if gave you the opportunity to get up and get a drink, make a sandwich or go use the bathroom. But lately, with the excessive amounts of commercials you have time to do all three of those things. Now they are corrupting our entertainment with product placement within the entertainment itself. Annoying...but livable since they have only the ability to make sounds and video so it kind of limits what they can do. (Though I make predictions that they will begin adding ear-drum-peircing tones to the beginning and end of each commercial to take advantage of the new pain marketting techniques.)
The same generally applies to radio where the commercial air time obviously swarfs the amount of entertainment air time. But again, ear-drum shattering tones, not unlike the Emergency Broacast System tests, will mark the beginnings and ends of advertisments on the radio.
With computers and internet, we have suffered greatly from the creative genius of marketters who clearly illustrate they have no moral boundaries. They spam us, we block them, they find ways around the blocks and keep spamming. Now what marketting genius thinks it is a good idea to skirt what amounts to security measures in order to get your advertisment through? In some places it's a criminal offense to ignore a "No Soliciting" sign. How about climing over a security fence in order to place a handbill on your door? Is it okay? Or what about picking the lock of your back door (a clear invitation since you have a back door, it must mean you want someone to come in through it right?) in order to stick something on your refridgerator (and then count all the items in your food storage to see what you've been eating and buying)? Would this be acceptable? No, guess not. Marketters would think it's equally ridiculous...or would they..? (Do you think I just gave them a bad idea? D'oh!)
I have proposed this idea in the past and I believe I got some support for the idea at the time but now I'm almost ready to start the push myself. Let's make a "mark" in the minds of the consumers out there.
I think we should hire some people to go around and beat up random strangers on the street. The advertising comes in when you script the ass-kickin' with commercial messages. Timing is crucial. For example, if I were advertising Viagra, a kick in the crotch should happen at exactly the moment the product name is mentioned. This works directly as the word "Viagra" will be stuck in the mind of the recipient for a LONG LONG time. And indirectly, as you see people holding their damaged "goods" and you ask them what happened, they can simply answer "Viagra" and the message will be clear.
I have considered many ways in which pain would be an effective marketting tool and the scenario above is just one example.
Popups are for wimps.
Re:Hey! (Score:4, Interesting)
Man, I hate advertising. I'm with Bill Hicks on this: If you're in marketing, just kill yourself. Please.
Re:Floaters are not evil. (Score:3, Interesting)
With pop-ups/unders, you can get rid of them by closing the browser window that contains them -- this is something that is under the control of the browser application/OS, not the web page.
Floaters are integrated into the page content, so there are no standard browser controls available to remove them -- you have to rely on any provision that has been made within the floater/containing web page to remove it.
I would not trust that clicking on part of a floater will remove it and not just link to an advert page, or even worse, exploit a browser vunerability -- afterall, plenty of pop-ups use underhand techniques (e.g. mimicing OS dialogue boxes) to try and get people to click on them.
[Happosai]
Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a simple solution - don't use their site
I dont think i know any site that i couldnt live without that use ads to get their revenue.
So if thats what it comes to - fine, i wont be using such a site at all.
Poisoning the well (Score:3, Interesting)
I anticipate that the next generation of web browsers will include whitelist capabilities that allow users to enable these features only for "well behaved" web sites that refuse to allow intrusive advertising.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, what we need to do is get rid of all the stupid people. I suggest telling them there is a giant space goat coming to eat the planet and putting them all on some kind of space ark.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, thought of one more response heh.
That is partly because, in the case of popups, you can distinguish between a popup that the user wants (e.g. they clicked a link which opens content in a new window), and automatic popups. Popup blockers still allow new windows when you click a link, typically. They just kill automatic popups.
Unfortunately, in the case of dhtml layers, it *is* harder, as you said, to distinguish. Maybe someone could think up a solution though, that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.
Re:Sollution. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not a problem - use RegExp (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, a filter in AdBlock which is simply
Whats also great is that REGEXP can't be circumvented by the advertiser moving to a new domain unless thay also change the entire structure of their system.
As a system builder I support Firefox as it keeps my customers PCs secure. AdBlock's ability to remove annoying content encourages them to use Firefox over IE and consequently helps me out a great deal.
Re:games too (Score:3, Interesting)
Why are ads served from central hosts? (Score:2, Interesting)
What I want to know is why ads are served from a central host? Does it have to do with keeping the web sites honest? Could a website say that it's getting 5x the number of hits and fake the ad server into sending it extra banners, thus driving up their ad revenue? Also, my sister worked for double-click for a while (I almost disowned her, but she did hate it), and she told me that they do all sorts of logic and tracking on the ads, which ads benefit for them to serve directly. I guess it would also allow them to determine what kinds of pages a person is going to and send relevant ads no matter what the current host is... any ideas?
Re:Who Clicks On These? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've clicked on an advert and bought something.
It was a small, text-only advert that simply gave the relevent product details: root on a FreeBSD virtual server for $65/mo, no set-up fee [johncompanies.com]. I saw it, I thought it sounded like a good deal, clicked through, their website was simple and clear, so I signed up. They've given excellent service with the best technical support I've ever found in a hosting company, and I've been using them for years now.
I realise this sounds like an advert, but I'm not paid to say this or anything; I think it's a good example of effective advertising - a targeted ad that gives the relevent facts without being obtrusive, followed up with an excellent product. Compared with the "throw yourself at as many eyeballs as you can" approach, I know which I'm willing to tolerate and even give business to, and which I am going to block permanently.
Annoying ads (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I've refused to deal with companies before because of their advertising, but I'm not sure the majority of folks will.
Re:Complain (Score:3, Interesting)
The response (not auto, an actual person): Yes, it's out on DVD in the UK *now*!
My response was along the lines of 'I am
Theirs: What are you talking about? It's already released! Go buy it!
Total fuckwittery. They really couldn't understand at all that I was complaining about an advert. Tells you everything you need to know about marketeers. They are morons.
Justin.
Re:Who Clicks On These? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is no sig
Re:Sollution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Flash-Disable.reg
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{D27CDB6E-AE6D-11CF-96B8-4445535400
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
Flash-Enable.reg
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Interne
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
Re:how do they work? (Score:3, Interesting)
yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. it's gotta be on top, so it'll have the highest z-index in the page. maybe the browser could look at all the layers, take the top one (highest z-index) and either display it as the lowest. or somehow indicate to the user that the top layer's been removed.
again, however, doing this in a blanket fashion could hork up sites that (a) use z-index, and (b) do not use floaters.
Re:Yawn.... Firefox + Adblock = Ads? What ads? (Score:3, Interesting)
Site navigation is not a valid use. Links are a valid navigation method, plugins and other shit are not.
Blocking *.swf would render some sites completely unusable.
This is true, but by definition those sites weren't worth visiting in the first place.
TWW
simple? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not always simple. My bank began these annoying ads recently. So my "simple" choice here is to either cease doing online banking (not a zero-cost proposition), switch banks (not a zero cost proposition), or put up with the ads. IMO this amounts to a unilateral and material change of relationship by my bank, which I have a problem with because I was never consulted. Yes, I have a choice, but it's not so easy that I'm whistling "don't worry be happy" while I'm mulling over my next move.
Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a neverending battle (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, a couple years from now when (please please please) SVG actually starts to be a standard in browsers, we'll see SVG advertisements that not only move around but ANIMATE.
Then we'll be forced to implement crap like "Only allow SVG from the sites I authorize" etc etc... It's an arms race. I prefer to deal with the issue by not browsing to sites which choose to run ads that pollute my browsing experience.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I find myself keeping ad banners unblocked on a site
You want to show me "brought to you by", or reserve even half the space on the page for ads, go for it. Just keep it calm. You get in my face like a used car salesman though, I'm gone from your site for the day, and your advertiser is gone from my browser for good.
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to think I'm a lot like many other people here. When making purchasing decisions, I decide what I want based on rational criteria such as price, features, customer service and so forth. I tell myself that none of the millions of ads I've seen in my life are shaping my decisions.
I remember reading a short SF story about consumerisation in the future. People are working ten hour days, six and seven days a week to buy all this useless crap that is specifically designed to break down in three months. Car tires, for instance, must match groove patterns in the roads (which are changed every few months) or the vibrations will destroy the tire and car. People spend all their free time figuring out deals in buying clubs. Finally, ad companies come up with these subliminal mind control antennas. The main character ends up stopping at the store for a carton of cigarettes (which he doesn't smoke) and putting them absentmindedly in the glove compartment with all the other unsmoked cartons of cigarettes.
Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?
Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
My previous post's thesis is really more along the lines that pointedly irritating ads represent a slide in aesthetic quality of ads (the craftsmanship that goes into them, and - I'd be willing to speculate - their effectiveness) and a precipitating slide of the standards used to scrutinize them by their commissioners. I think there's little doubt that ads influence people, though there's much doubt about the degree to which they influence people.
I'm probably more hostile to ads than most people. If I see an ad with a smiling person in it, I immediately imagine that the smile is to put me at ease while that person (or the entity they front) picks my pocket. And on the rare ocassion I accidentally let an ad onto my tivo and into my kid's line of sight, it's startling how negatively the ads affect my kid's sense of being content with what we have.
Block anything and everything (Score:2, Interesting)
I filled my HOST file with entries like this:
127.0.0.1 01.sharedsource.org
127.0.0.1 0190-dialer.com
127.0.0.1 03.sharedsource.org
127.0.0.1 05.sharedsource.org
127.0.0.1 09.sharedsource.org
127.0.0.1 0websearch.com
127.0.0.1 10.xxor.biz
127.0.0.1 10016.searchmiracle.com
127.0.0.1 123count.com
127.0.0.1 123greetings.com
127.0.0.1 123greettings.com
127.0.0.1 123invention.com
127.0.0.1 xrenoder.com
127.0.0.1 xxor.biz
127.0.0.1 xxxod.net
127.0.0.1 xxxwwwjjjhd.20forfree.com
127.0.0.1 yeah.com
127.0.0.1 yo.netster.com
127.0.0.1 your.com
127.0.0.1 your.wishbone.com
This way when even a floater or popup add was called it was directed back to my computer to look for the file to load.
Worked extermly well. Blocked all Ad related cookies as well.
The one issue is that it took some extra time to load and process the 1 meg HOST file. After the intial load MS Internet Explorer worked normally. I would not mind testing it out on a really fast computer and see how it works. A site that would automaticly update a new HOST file with the known ads would be a perfect aid.
Re:Not a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
It might be nice to just not go there, but because of the interlinked nature of the web, you are drawn to a site from another site by a link that appears to interest you, such as a story on Slashdot. You go to the page, ready to read up on it, and now have this big annoying floaty-thing hovering right over the article you're trying to read. You came here to read something of interest to you, do you just leave now in disgust, or wait for the thing to go away and carry on? Either way you've just had your chain yanked. It really blows.
Re:According to this Ad Executive, YOU're a THIEF! (Score:1, Interesting)
I propose an alternative:
Have the blocking software register a "hit" for all ads that it blocks.
Maybe they already do this, hehe
That way, Jill Web Artist gets reimbursed for costs (via ad revenue), and the ad companies get shafted.
The potential long term effect of ad companies advertising less, however, could be bad... bah, how likely is THAT to happen?
Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what you think.
Honestly, how do we know we aren't being influenced?
Now you are on the right track. However, there is no spooky, subliminal hypnosis involved. It's just that we are far more susceptible to advertising than we think. Companies advertise for only one reason: it works. New products have uncertain demand, but in established industries it is fairly easy to predict how sales will respond to advertising. Yet nobody thinks they are influenced by ads. Likewise, it is easy to prove that physically attractive political candidates have a material advantage over uglier ones, but while we may be willing to to believe that other voters could be so superficial, we all know that we ourselves are wiser
Re:Not a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
However, that turns out not to be the case. (Sorry, I just have been looking for an excuse to use that line.) In my Technical Writing course, I've noticed that the examples that the majority of the class will fixate on, and consider the best examples tend to be the colorful, flashy, uninformative ones. They've been conditioned to accept advertising as aprimary source of information and will make decisions based on it. I find it disheartening when I'm the only individual in class who actually reads the content of an example to find the one I like best.
Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the brain dead masses would surprise you if we automated everything that could be automated, gave them the option of living in an enclave/commune with $DRUG_OF_CHOICE or bettering themselves and contributing something to the community at large. Personally, I think most people would try to contribute. If contributing to the community weren't a natural drive of most humans, we would never have gotten where we are. I think it's a much more powerful drive than any purely selfish greed-based drive. In most people.
Again, this is just my opinion, but I think that far more dangerous than the people with no ambition/work ethic are the people with too much ambition and no empathy/community spirit. They are the real blood-suckers, not the passively lazy.