×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

653 comments

frist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737219)

frist

Great article (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737229)

Almost completely devoid of content.

Re:Great article (1)

Temkin (112574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737323)

Agreed... There's no "why" there, just "who". Otherwise pointing out what we've all already discovered.

Sadly Netflix seems to think they're grand. This makes me feel better about canceling my Netflix account.

Re:Great article (5, Informative)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737589)

FYI, I've yet to find one of these which I suspect is because in addition to running AdBlock Plus, I also regularly use NoScript. The combination of the two swats 99% of ads of all kinds, and completely kills any popups unless I specifically enable them on a site.

Re:Great article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738165)

does this block all CSS ADs that popup in front you?

Turn of scriptin you fooz you !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737397)

Dumb rednecks

Re:Great article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737407)

And what it has is stupid "They just use DHTML". Well, DHTML [w3schools.com] is just a marketing term to group a few (JavaScript, CSS, HTML and DOM) things together. These things using DHTML isn't suprising or new and this doesn't tell anything at all... Spam article.

Re:Great article (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737507)

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 (2, Insightful)

Forge (2456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737749)

And likewise if you are reading content paid for by popup adds while useing an add blocker you are a thief and an information pirate.

*me runs for cover as Home Depote suddenly sells all it's Pitchforks to SlashDot regulars.

BTW: Where did the quote in your .sig come from?

Re:Great article (5, Funny)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737923)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26738025)

where the fuck did your grammar come from?

Re:Great article (2, Informative)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737979)

Apparantly their metrics state the profits are positive; And as long as they are making profits the only retards are those who call them "retards" for continuing a profitable business venture. I hate pop-ups too, but if enough people buy stuff from pop-up links (and why not, not all of the products are viagra, porn, virus) they will continue to implement them.

Re:Great article (1, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738079)

The only reason I haven't tried NetFlix is popups for their product. When they stop annoying me I may try their product.

Popups are why I hesitate to go to weather.com

Agreed, these people are retarded.

Re:Great article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737521)

This is a cool!
--
http://www.sibecolog.ru/

Annoying but expected (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737255)

I'm just surprised it took this long to be honest.

Nothing more annoying than getting a huge flash video animation splatted in front of the article you are reading, with no obvious [X] to click immediately.

Re:Annoying but expected (3, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737477)

Nothing more annoying than getting a huge flash video animation splatted in front of the article you are reading,

There is a solution to this "problem". Don't install Flash. Flash is evil. Flash must die [slashdot.org].

Re:Annoying but expected (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737675)

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 (4, Informative)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737847)

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 (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738039)

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 (5, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738179)

but it's also necessary to get anything out of an increasing number of sites.

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.

Won't be long (2, Insightful)

LurkingOnSlashdot (1378465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737267)

Won't be long before the anti-popup firefox plugins can detect css-based popup and allow you to disable them as well. Only problem is they can't be disabled across the board because it would break a lot of the "web2.0" functionality of websites.

Re:Won't be long (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737297)

My thought was, isn't it trivial to write an AdBlock filter that will just block all the unwanted content from AdImpact servers?

Re:Won't be long (5, Insightful)

kabloom (755503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737347)

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:Won't be long (3, Informative)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738109)

Go to your /etc/hosts file. (sample location: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\etc\HOSTS )
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).

That's why Adblock plus exists ! (4, Informative)

menegator (539434) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737293)

Adblock plus, problem solved!

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (4, Informative)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737351)

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 ! (3, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737929)

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (2, Informative)

swb (14022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738027)

No popup for me, but I don't allow Slashdot to run scripts!

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738145)

Yer right, I had a beautiful blue ball, until I clicked "Block Content" then clicked on the ball, followed by "Done"...

Opera took it upon itself to add "http://www.adimpact.com/webapp/*" into its blocked list, that's the last I'll see of the "blue balls"...

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737391)

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."

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (1)

RoCKeTKaT (1456287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737479)

I agree 100%, I would not want to surf the web if these two extensions did not exist ... maybe I should consider donating ...

Either way, no a single popup gets through ... ever, unless I allow it to willingly.

NoScript makes the web useless. (3, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737645)

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. (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737785)

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.
Shouldn't that be poor website design + NoScript makes the web useless?

Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737913)

What I really want from noscript is the option to just block flash. I've got flashblock, and it works, but it doesn't work in quite the same way that noscript does. Flashblock fails occasionally, it seems to let flash load for a fraction of a second and then kill it and replace it, which is not always helpful.

Re:NoScript makes the web useless. (5, Informative)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737965)

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:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (2, Interesting)

!coward (168942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737735)

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:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737893)

I'm with you. I have read this whole thread to try to figure out WTF people are seeing. I don't get pop-ups and crap. What is wrong with my setup that I am not being plagued by this new method? I guess it turns out to be FUD article and people that have not used the tools that have been provided to them.

Flashblock is a good addon too. I had autoloading media. It's nice that I can push the button to play or ignore it safely if I feel like it.

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737921)

The best thing in Adblockplus is the element hiding helper - filter stuff by CSS selector. I only wish Adblockplus were smarter wrt Flash - commercials prepended to movies and such. But that's really tricky.

Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738033)

True. I visited the site that supposed to have this "unblockable" popups, but they failed to pop up on my Firefox. Adblock plus is a wonderful plugin.

Popups? (5, Informative)

ppz003 (797487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737303)

What popups?

This mostly popup free browsing experience brought to you by the makers of Firefox and NoScript.

Re:Popups? (5, Informative)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737567)

I use opera and I haven't gotten a popup in years. No need for "no script." Just plainly no popups.

Re:Popups? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737643)

No need to see 30% of websites either, your gmail won't work every other release and expect to crash every 45 minutes. Welcome to the world of Opera.

Re:Popups? (4, Informative)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737833)

I know you're trolling, but just to help remove the FUD, opera works fine with gmail, doesn't crash, and was one of the first browsers to pass the acid test.

Re:Popups? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737587)

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:Popups? (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737917)

I use Konqueror and only webpage what brings pop-up is bt-torrent or similar site what you can access from eztv dot it site when downloading a torrent. I was watching what my friend was doing on my computer when I notices fullscreen pop-up.

Those are very annoying on these days when I do not see them at all. I do not like to use Opera or Mozilla Firefox, but still konqueror manages to remove all unwated pop-ups.

I had now that adimpact site on tab and suddenly something popped up... but it was just a notification from konsole that it has got silence... so wrong alarm. Still nothing from that site... I think they are soon out of business...

Re:Popups? (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738099)

I thought that too.
"I haven't noticed an increase". . . "but then I use noscript and ABP".

The winner in the browser wars is Firefox but not because of itself, because of Noscript and ABP.

There is no problem. (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737319)

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. (5, Insightful)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737831)

It would be useful if, instead of just closing the tab, there was a button that increments a counter at the site for the marketers to see, blocks the site completely and irrevocably for all eternity and thencloses the tab.

That way there is a running total of customers lost due to stupid marketing.

Re:There is no problem. (4, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737855)

I agree with this one. If you're so insensitive to your customer/reader base that you don't mind putting offensive ads into your content (Time.com I'm looking at you), then you don't get my business at all.

Why companies think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.. I have no idea.

Re:There is no problem. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738053)

I prefer Adblock Plus/NoScript. It's so funny when the site owner goes ballistic about "content thieves" and tries to implement Javascript DRM. :)

"Unblockable" (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737327)

"The Dynamic Popup Generator can create pressure pop-ups, unblockable DHTML pop-ups, PictoPop-ups, conditional popups, instant opt-in pop-ups, and rotating pop-ups"."

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" (3, Interesting)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737527)

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... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737685)

"Bloody hell", I thought, is that what the web looks like?

Then I went back to Firefox with AdBlock/NoScript.

Do not want.

Re:I tried Google Chrome last week... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737765)

What's Firefox got that wget lacks?

Re:"Unblockable" (5, Insightful)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737803)

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 :(

Blocking it (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737355)

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.

But is 404 the best answer? (1)

nietsch (112711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737603)

wouldn't it be a better solution to serve a 1 pixel image to every pixel-like request, or just an empty page?

Re:But is 404 the best answer? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737885)

Probably, but that'd be more work. I'd have to write a custom program to parse the requested path looking for things that looked like image requests, and it'd probably miss a lot of them because nothing requires an image request to be for a file ending in .gif/.jpg/etc.. And 404 Not Found works just fine to trigger the browser's broken-image placeholder, so doing better's IMO more effort than it's worth.

I hadn't noticed (3, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737377)

I use Firefox with the AdBlock Plus [mozilla.org], NoScript [mozilla.org], and FlashBlock [mozilla.org] add-ons installed. I haven't noticed any pop-up ads.

Re:I hadn't noticed (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737443)

Ditto....seriously....I hadn't noticed. The article is too long to sustain my attention, so I didn't read it, but they aren't using AdBlock Plus, are they?

Re:I hadn't noticed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737763)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm getting quite tired of the deluge of self-satisfied Adblock and NoScript "Me Too!" posts here whenever a story mentions online advertising. It's news for nerds. Everybody knows already.

Re:I hadn't noticed (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737825)

Really the first thing I thought reading this article was "I didn't know pop-ups are still being used". It's been so long since I've seen any!

I don't use AdBlock on my main PC, only on the EEE because that one often connects over a slow 3G connection. Only FlashBlock, and that does wonders against irritating floaters and flashing banners.

The rest of the advertising is generally non-intrusive so I don't care about it. I don't even realise the difference between /. browsing with and without ads.

Re:I hadn't noticed (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737873)

Do you look at any mainstream websites? Most of the video sites use Flash and scripts up the wazzoo.

I had all three installed and I ended up spending most of my time temporarily enabling scripts and Flash for most sites I visit.

Which really annoys the piss out of me! WTF do web designers have to use Flash for every stupid little thing!

Re:I hadn't noticed (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737959)

I just use konqueror from KDE desktop environment. I do not need AdBlock Plus, NoScript. I just use Internet sites as they were meant to be used when World Wide Web was designed... (unless they designed those pop-ups and other things, what I still do not see).

There is a way to block them w/ disabling script (3, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737425)

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:There is a way to block them w/ disabling scrip (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737861)

I think a more interesting feature would be for browsers to allow you to limit iframe src, js src, and css src to HAVE to refer to the same domain of the page that you are on (similar to the current restrictions on cross-domain scripting (as in, scripts talking to scripts)). In this case, we just apply it to the HTML and CSS in general.

That way people like me can use JS to our heart's content on the same site we're currently on, and others are screwed.

Just put it in as an optional feature in the popup blocker on your browsers and let users enable or disable that as they see fit. Then you won't necessarily need ABP + NoScript + FlashBlock all installed or else doom for them!

Articles like this ... (4, Informative)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737531)

... are like free endorsements for Firefox + adblock plus + NoScript + ... some other extensions.

The more they keep annoying users, the more popular the solution becomes.

The arms race (1)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737537)

As with all spam/issues there will eventually be a solution/fix, and then another way to get around the solution, then another solution, and then...

Need I go on?

See: Red Queen Effect [wikipedia.org]

What's the big deal ? (4, Informative)

baomike (143457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737543)

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 (2, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737581)

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.

What did you expect? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737769)

Yahoo's business model is based on installing unwanted toolbars and hijacking people's home pages.

I refuse to have anything to do with them.

Re:Sorta related: Yahoo mail got worse (2, Informative)

bearfx (697655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737941)

I used to use hotmail religiously. I joined them shortly after the opened the service for the public (back when their was a 2 MB limit on email!).

Then Microsoft bought them, and I thought "Mayne it won't be too bad".

"Lost" e-mails, loads of spam, unreliable delivery and receipt. These things pushed me to look at other services, but the final straw was the ads. The large, glaring, annoying, brightly colored/blinking/moving ads. It was like trying to read a book while someone points a flashlight into your eyes.

So I moved to GMail. Their are ads, but they are unobtrusive. I see them at the top of the page, and I have even clicked on a few, but they don't interfere with what I came to do - read my e-mail.

I recognize that sites need advertising dollars to support themselves, and I hate resorting to ad-blockers for this reason - but the advertising has gone too far. When half the page is flashing/moving you can't focus on the content, and content is what it is all about.

I don't know that I have a point to this message, except maybe to get MY perspective on this issue out there, but I am with you. I hope that the service providers lost enough users to come to their senses.

I do use adblock, but try to keep the bloklist to only the most annoying ads. I also use NoScript, and think it is one of the best extensions out there. Between the to, I rarely see popups. When one does sneak in there, I will usually take steps to keep it from happening again.

I Hadn't Noticed (0, Redundant)

Gallenod (84385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737617)

I haven't noticed any new pop-ups lately, but that could be because I use Firefox with NoScript set to allow only those scripts I explicitly approve.

Yes, it's an anal-retentive control freak approach. But it keeps most ad crap from cluttering up my browser and has the added bonus of probably annoying many of the people who might try to use Web scripts to monitor my Web browsing. If I find I need to use a script on a page for functionality, I give it temporary permission that goes away once I close the browser.

I browse this way because they really are out to get me.

Opera browsing is painless browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737653)

Opera + no javascript = No bullshit.

HOSTS file FTW! (5, Informative)

cyberjock1980 (1131059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737795)

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! (3, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737963)

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.

Block Everything ! (1)

Fenax (1094827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737809)

Block all DHTML, problem solved ! Also I think I am fairly well protected against those things, Thank you addblock plus and noscript.

Geez, I thought it was me! (1)

karlandtanya (601084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737817)

Installed Ad-Aware again, didn't find anything interesting, then booted from a microSD reloaded an image from 3 weeks ago.

Oh, well--at least I proved the image was good!

Simply don't use such stupid websites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26737819)

Simply don't use such stupid and annoying websites!

to those who don't use javascript or flash: (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737827)

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: (5, Informative)

whyloginwhysubscribe (993688) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737933)

The firefox noscript extension doesn't permanently block javascript - it informs you when a site is trying to use javascript and gives you the choice to allow it temporarily or trust it completely.

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...

Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: (2, Interesting)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738007)

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: (0, Offtopic)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738173)

Here, first let me correct that for you:

are you familiar with the phenomenon of the guy who owns an iMac/iPhone/[Insert Apple Product Here], and must remind every stranger he meets of this fact, constantly?

To which question, the answer is yes.

This is bumming me out (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737901)

I hate pop ups with a passion so if these DHTML pop up scripts are implemented on a large scale I'm gonna be hella-peeved.

Is there any sort of registry setting that can be tweaked to disable dhtml?

Or maybe a registry setting to limit the rendering of pages to a certain HTML Standard?

F5 (1)

KevMar (471257) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737945)

Something that I started to do when I see those popups within the page is to imediatly hit F5 to refresh. Most places will only show you that add once so they set a cookie to track if you saw that or not.

So by hitting F5 it you viewing the page again for the 2nd time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...