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."
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.
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.
Re:Popups? (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.
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank god!!
For a minute there I thought I was the only one. All this stuff about "everyone has been affected by now" or "blockers don't work anymore" and I kept thinking "hell, are we talking about the same web here?"
I mean, I highly doubt some of the sites I visit don't have aggressive ads (in fact, I'm reminded of it everytime I'm forced to use IE -- luckily that only happens every once in a while), and I can't remember the last time my FF has given me any pains when it comes to annoying ads.
Most of the time I don't even use NoScript (need it disabled for a number of reasons).
So what's the problem, again? There IS a solution, it's called AdBlockPlus.. Ohh, you mean the somewhat lame, built-in pop-up blockers in (mostly) IE. Well then, I think you've got more serious things to worry about than this. >:)
Re:There is no problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why companies think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.. I have no idea.
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: (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:I tried Google Chrome last week... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (Score:1, Interesting)
> Try this URL http://www.adimpact.com/cgi-bin/webapp/nph-demo.cgi/000000A/http/slashdot.org/ [adimpact.com]
When I clicked this link, the F-Secure Client Security 8.00 protection suite gave me a pop-up window, alerting that active network traffic is trying to modify the Firefox thread running on my computer and asking the end user for a block/allow decision. I clicked Deny.
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: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:Annoying but expected (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:Great article (Score:2, Interesting)
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, 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:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right ... and when you are eligible, the front page even asks you to do so. However, when meta-modding, you really only see a few posts, and a single moderation for them. In contrast, the moderation system itself is mostly self-correcting: Many people (I suspect MORE people) see the post in-context, and will moderate up or down as appropriate. The trouble is, many people while moderating (including me) do not often want to sift the -1's, and so end up modding things that are ALREADY above a threshold. If more of us moderated "properly" (looking at -1's, and such), we would get more corrections of mistaken-downmods.
(This is off-topic, I expect; sorry about that.)
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:NoScript makes the web useless. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then watch people rip that content and place it on the Piratebay. When DRM gets so bad you can't use the content, rip and fix it.
Re:Great article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great article (Score:3, Interesting)
A few sites have done that, including PCWorld. I notice it didn't last, probably because a lot of people go "who needs this shit" and leave, or with newbies, can't figure out how to proceed past it (if it doesn't automatically proceed, and some don't).
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.
Re:Great article (Score:3, Interesting)
So you never spend money? Nor talk to anyone else about any product, ever?
Maybe I needed to be a little more explicit, so I'll help you learn what's going on here. Here's a link to Push-Pull Marketing [wikipedia.org].
I am very resistant to push marketing, at least online, because I typically buy things on a 'need-only' basis. I don't care if you want me to purchase the latest greatest thing. When I'm ready, I'll come seek you out, but don't spam me with messages trying to artificially create a need there. The other part of it is that because the ads are not well targeted to my needs, I have never clicked on (let alone purchased) anything because of an advertisement.
So from my point of view, let's cut to the chase and remove the noise altogether. I don't have to see the ad, advertiser saves on bandwidth. Win-win.
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:Annoying but expected (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad but true, the number of flash only sites are increasing. I planned a trip to SE Asia lately and was shocked to see how many hotels had flash only sites and most of them weren't using the latest version of flash. Some were so old that they still had the Macromeida logo when loading and they took their sweet time in doing so.
I don't think its increasing due to many sites being remade into flash but due to the fact that new sites are made with flash due to the fact designers don't have a clue. Most people don't actually see their sites live from a remote location. My company has a marketing/corporate communications arm so I can say that most clients see their websites in carefully planned demonstrations not real world conditions and many remain blissful unaware of how poorly some sites perform. Realistically a demonstration should be made whilst VPN'ed into a remote box on a cheap domestic broadband connection, not the business grade fibre that we pay thousands per month for but using reality to demonstrate a point is the antithesis of marketing.
Add to this the fact that most designers cant even write basic HTML. They would be lost without their WYSIWYG editors and Flash Dev tools that do the work for them. I've put designers and "web developers" in front of their own HTML code only to be faced with the most vapid and blank expressions as they clearly don't have a clue what they've written. Most designers don't understand the technology they are using, this is why we end up with all flash, bandwidth hogging sites.