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!

Firefox Users Bad For Advertisers

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the smart-clickers dept.

Mozilla 900

rocketjam writes "According to CNET, German advertising technology company Adtech reports that during the months of October and November, Internet Explorer users were more than four times as likely to click on ads than Firefox users were. During the period 0.5 percent of IE users clicked on ads compared to 0.11 percent of Firefox users. Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking to seeing the average Firefox user as more tech-savvy the average Internet Explorer user."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AdBlock (5, Informative)

ack154 (591432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016787)

Having something like AdBlock [] probably doesn't help their click % for Firefox either.

Hooray for extensions!

Re:AdBlock (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016819)

Perhaps i should write a AdClick Extension;-)

Re:AdBlock (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016964)

This is modded funny, it is but is it such a bad idea ?
An extra button or shortcut labeled "help this site" wich opens all ads in background tabs ? I would use it.

Re:AdBlock (5, Interesting)

Proaxiom (544639) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016857)

I use Adblock also, and I love it.

But I've been thinking lately -- is this going to change the Internet dramatically? How many web sites rely on advertising revenue, and won't get it anymore when everybody is filtering banners?

For instance, I now read Slashdot with no ads, and I'm not a subscriber. Adblock decreases the value proposition of a Slashdot subscription.

Re:AdBlock (4, Insightful)

Freexe (717562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016920)

Turn off Adblock, Adblock will only kill the source of money for most sites. I believe that pop-ups and large overlays and messy flash ads should all die a slow and painfull ad death, but you have to allow some ads through to support the sites that you visit, that and buy their stuff and subscribe. Runnning servers is not cheap/free, and not everyone is nice enough to do it for free/ especially if the bandwidth bills start to mount up. Without ads, google wouldn't exist, and i can think of a few:) other sites that would die if everyone started blocking ads. So dont be so selfish and shortsighted and switch Ablock off and click on a few ads from time to time and buy stuff.

Re:AdBlock (4, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016956)

The internet existed before advertising. I'm sure business models can adapt to consumers who wish to be treated with respect.

Re:AdBlock (2, Insightful)

wheany (460585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016945)

I block only annoying ads. Don't have a huge flashing/looping animated ad embedded in the middle of the story and I won't block it.

Actually it really makes no difference, since I won't click on the non-annoying ads either.

Re:AdBlock (1)

AlgaeEater (838019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016858)

"Hooray for extensions!"? Hooray for an internet browser that fulfils the criteria of being a functional browser. I have been struggling with IE for years and now I have a comfortable and easy to us browser that is actually configurable. Wow.

Re:AdBlock (4, Insightful)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016882)

My general principle with ads is the following: If the ad is not intrusive, and is not flash, (I.e. it doesn't have lots of motion, doesn't eat up cpu cycles, and doesn't flash horrendous colors at me), I will not block it. Otherwise, I will.

Also if I don't like the site I'm on, I will typically block as many ads as I can (like, but I don't bother with most ads on slashdot.

I just hate really intrusive ads. Unfortunately, the intrusive ads are the ones that get the attention, and thus the clicks, of the users. Maybe if the advertisers actually offered something I wanted, they would see more success.

Me too (excuse the AOLism) (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016899)

I block ads with two-frame flashing colours, or two-frame "jitters". I do this partly because I think it's a particularly obnoxious way to advertise something, but also because I find it quite migraine-inducing.

Re:AdBlock (1)

tommertron (640180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016912)

I'm just worried that this gets bigger and one day some sites will figure out a way of blocking their content to anytone running adblock, or anyone who doesn't first load an ad first.

That's why I don't like to spread the word about adblock too much... when just me and a few others use it, it's great. When everyone starts using it, it will become a problem.

Re:AdBlock (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016930)

Flash click to view(I forget the exact extension name, it hadn't been updated yet for Firefox 1.0 last I checked) is also a must have.

Re:AdBlock (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016954)

A bit of a deviation from the main topic, but this would probably be a good place for people to post their methods for getting AdBlock to work as effectively as possible with minimal intervention. I know I kind of get sick of AdBlocking individual images. It kinda gets pointless on pages not regularly visited.

So far, the only one I know is to block ad.* Does anybody else have any suggestions? (I checked Google first)

tiger tunes (-1, Offtopic)

professor seagull (677508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016789)

tiger tunes will make you dance dannnnnce

In Soviet Russia... (1)

I'm not a script, da (638454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016822) makes tiger tune you!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

professor seagull (677508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016864)

either way i'm still ready to party

or (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016790)

it could be the adblock extension, maybe?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016793)


What about us Opera users?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016797)

All your clicks are belong to fr1st post Opera lusers!!... (we reload faster!) .. ;P

more than four times as likely to click on ads (5, Insightful)

essreenim (647659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016798)

OMG - hello. I expect everyone in /. agree when I say:

One of the reasons we use Firefox is because it blocks pop-up ADDS. So why would a firefox user go and proactively click on adds after going to all that troubl???
Sheesh, go figure...

Re:more than four times as likely to click on ads (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016817)

If you're going to stress a specific word, be sure to spell it correctly, so that you don't bring focused attention to your mistake.

Re:more than four times as likely to click on ads (0)

phrasebook (740834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016846)

Your insight astounds.

Re:more than four times as likely to click on ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016925)

No, actually I think the results of the study were skewed by those left-handed monkeys using IE.

Re:more than four times as likely to click on ads (1)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016938)

Please don't speak for me when I don't agree with you. I don't use Firefox because it blocks ads, I use it because Firefox simply does the job under Linux... could just as well be using Opera, if it was free and open-source.

Re:more than four times as likely to click on ads (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016969)

I don't generally mind ads one bit. I only mind ANNOYING ads.

I've clicked on banner ads a few times, name when they advertised something interesting. But I've had to disable pop-up ads and flash ads (using flash click-to-view) because pop-ups are annoying and flash ads are sometimes poorly written and suck down all available CPU, slowing down the system.

If advertisers would stop insisting on ANNOYING me, I'd dislike them a lot less. Magazine ads don't animate and attempt to distract and annoy you and are successful; so web site ads can follow this model too.


In Soviet Russia... (1)

I'm not a script, da (638454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016799)

...eye eee clicks on you!

I agree (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016800)

I agree ... 1st post :)

The users... (5, Interesting)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016801)

... isn't it rather that the people who use Firefox generally are more 'technical' than the people who use IE, spend more time online, etc, and therefor simply are less likely to click on the advertisements, rather than it being due to Firefox' ad-blocking technology ?

Will this ad-blocking software for Firefox... (1)

Debian Troll's Best (678194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016803) available via apt-get?

heh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016806)

For example my mom, the noob IE user, clicks on those "Warning: Your computer is broadcasting an IP adddress" banners. People using Firefox are more likely not to be duped by scams, that should account for most of the discrepancy.

What next? (2, Funny)

chendo (678767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016809)

Benz drivers are less likely to crash because they tend to be more car-savvy?

Re:What next? (2, Informative)

Karrde712 (125745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016856)

Actually, if you look at the breakdown for insurance companies and their policies, you'll see that they give very different rates based on the car you drive, for two reasons: rate of theft, and rate of accidents statistically for those cars.

Re:What next? (5, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016880)

I think the same argument can be made for Volvo drivers. Volvos are marketed as "safe" cars, which means they're more likely to be sold to "careful" drivers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think what this really should do is tell advertisers that if they get a click-through from a Firefox user, then it's a lot more meaningful in terms of potential sale than a click-through from an IE user. A Firefox user is far more likely to "mean it" if they click on an ad. An IE user's click is probably statistically close to indistinguishable from a random click :-)

Have you ever seen a volvo driver? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016915)

They are bloody lunatics!

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016946)

I think what this really should do is tell advertisers that if they get a click-through from a Firefox user, then it's a lot more meaningful in terms of potential sale than a click-through from an IE user. A Firefox user is far more likely to "mean it" if they click on an ad.

Maybe. Isn't it also possible that since Firefox users have a much lower click through rate for ads that a click through from a Firefox user may in fact be inadvertent? The click through itself is meaningless without other metrics, say number of page views and the period of time over which they occurred, which would more accurately gauge interest.

Re:What next? (1)

q-the-impaler (708563) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016886)

Or Benz drivers are less likely to crash because there are fewer Benz drivers? But I see your point.

Re:What next? (2, Insightful)

coolcold (805170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016904)

i disagree

firefox users are more security conscious generally (where do you know firefox from? friends? or IT news site? whereas ie are preinstalled. A large portion of the population use their computer just for work, searches and such an they won't even have heard of spyware.

a better statistics would be how many people actually BUY product from ads. Since the clicks in firefox are more likely to be clicked because the product create an interest to the user.

about your point, you might be better off with "car-savvy are less likely to crash" but you will have to take into account they are also more likely to speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Re:What next? (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016911)

If you look at it as drivers going to places with dodgy business practices, I can say you'll see a lot more Fords parked at Wal-Mart than you will Mercedes-Benzes.

Re:What next? (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016947)

I don't know if I would call them car-savvy. Completely off-topic here, but I think DaimlerChrysler just makes a bunch of overpriced plastic boxes with shiny baubles inside that somehow fool people to pay $40,000 for something not worth half that. Now, I think cars are overpriced in general, and I would never, ever buy a new car, much less a Mercedes. The G-Class is deliciously obscene, but at $80,000 (base) I can't argue for something whose price would allow me to buy an older Land Rover Defender and leave me $40,000 in change. As far as the car-savvy I would probably point towards the people driving fifteen year old cars (Hondas, Toyotas, Volvos, BMWs) that run better than your average car from five years ago. People that change their own oil (or at least know when its time to get it changed). That's what makes me think of a Firefox user. []

The IE user is like the child driving a hopelessly trinketed Honda Civic DX plastered with advertisements. Sure, it might seem cool to them, but they don't get the irony. Oh, and they also get STDs frequently... from their car.

Skewed (5, Insightful)

ntsf (812742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016811)

It seems to me that the reason is fairly obvious. Many users have switched away from IE because of ads/spyware/etc. It would seem to make sense that they would be more aware of how ads function - and not click on them.

Re:Skewed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016937)

The blurb mentions two reasons, both of which are quite obvious. (Which doesn't seem to stop people here from triumphantly repeating them as though its a particularly novel insight!) It would be difficult to entangle the two, given the way the data were gathered -- I'm sure they both play a role.

One and the Same (2, Insightful)

Jameth (664111) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016816)

The fact that the users use ad-blocking tools and that the users are tech-savvy are really the same issue, not different ones.

(And, aside from that, they can stop most all of the ad-blocking problems by just having the website proxy all advertisement images on it, so they really shouldn't bitch about something with a fairly simple technological solution.)

FUD? (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016818)

Speculation on reasons for the difference in click rates range from Firefox's integrated pop-up blocking

What are they looking at for views? How many times the owning page is viewed, or the image (or popup) is viewed? It should be very easy for them to answer this question by comparing the views. They don't say much about banners either (which can also be blocked).

Ya' think? (2, Funny)

luckypp (619541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016824)

When most users that seek out an other internet browser can identify what the internet is, and most IE users call the internet, "That's the little blue thing, right?"

They just might be a bit more tech saavy.

Re:Ya' think? (2, Interesting)

selderrr (523988) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016968)

This is one of the things that seems really really hard for novice users : distinguising between email and browsing (many consider email as something not internet related), and understanding that the browser is not the internet, as much as MS word is not your text document.

I've had several people ask my if I was sure it wasn't spelled 'Enternet', since its icon is a big blue E... sigh...

Adblock!!!!!1 (1)

RikRat (834490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016825)

I think the Adblock extension makes a lot of sense, since it is on the first place of the mozilla extensions site. I also use Adblock, and it blocks almost every ad (including those on /. ;-). Just enter "ad.*", that will block a lot of ads. I also think the most Internet Explorer users /are/ users that click on banners, or those annoying banners who are just like little windows.

Re:Adblock!!!!!1 (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016926)

I started out doing that and blocked virtually all ads, until I realised that I do find targeted ads useful. If I'm on a site that compares ISPs, for example, I want to know about an ISP's latest offers. I still block the general ad providers, such as Doubleclick and Mediaplex, but if a site serves up it's own banner ads I let them through.

A different way of advertising... (1, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016826)

All this means is that they don't click on ads. Most likely because the ads are blocked at some level. The solution is to use ads that cannot be blocked (ie: text-based ads that don't use iframes), like how google ads are made up. I *do* click on those on occassion. Not because I feel I should as courtesy to the site I am visiting. Instead, it's because those ads have something I genuinely need or find interesting.

Re:A different way of advertising... (5, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016878)

I block google ads.

if someone goes to the effort of ignoring ads, working around their measures is more likely to piss them off than get their business.

Re:A different way of advertising... (1)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016953)

> (ie: text-based ads that don't use iframes), like how google ads are made up.

Wrong. Google Ads use JavaScript, and iframes, they can be easily blocked several ways: with AdBlock (and similar such extensions/programs), disabling JavaScript, or disabling iframes.

Re:A different way of advertising... (1)

MORB (793798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016959)

Most likely because the ads are blocked at some level. I don't think so. I wouldn't click on ads even if I didn't block them, and I don't think I'm alone. I must have clicked on an ad almost like three times in the last 3 years. Mostly, even if the ad is about something that could potentially interest me, I don't even notice them. They're nothing but noise to me.

Cant' see any ads (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016827)

What ads? Where?

Well, lets look at it this way (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016829)

Most Firefox users are Open source fans.

As we all know, open source is all about free software, and if the users here are anything to go by, free music, and generally speaking a free ride.

Advertised products cost money, and usually don;t work with Linux. They also usually have no way to circumvent paying for them. What interest would a firefox user have in clicking one of these ads in the first place? It could only cost them money or waste a click.

Re:Well, lets look at it this way (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016867)

While it used to be true that most firefox users are open source fans, that obviously is no longer the case with the dramatic increase in users that started with the preview release and continues with the release of 1.0.

Now, I hazard to guess, most firefox users are... regular users.

may i be the first to say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016830)


Browser ID spoofing (3, Interesting)

Karrde712 (125745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016831)

Aside from the obvious Adblock extension, there are also extensions available to spoof one's browser id. I usually set my ID to IE in order to avoid a lot of pages' JavaScript popups telling me that I need to use IE to view their page (which is no longer true).

I'd be curious to see the figures on that.

Re:Browser ID spoofing (2, Insightful)

RikRat (834490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016934)

Ah, so you are one of the guys that screws up those browsers polls?

There are ads on the internet? (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016833)

I would probably say that there are only about 20 sites on the Internet that I visit with any kind of regularity. Between Adblock and pop-up block, I've removed most advertising from the sites I visit. No ads makes the visit refreshing and a whole lot faster. Whenever I do wander to a new site and get inundated with ads, it intrusive.

Not FireFox... (2, Insightful)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016836)

Maybe it is just that most FireFox users don't like ads and all the crap they represent, so they don't bother with clicking on them. I do not think that is a brower dependant factor at all. And if it were, the advertising companies should make BANNER ads that are browser-independant [aka: gifs, not .swf or Java Applets]

not surprising (1)

mallumax (712655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016837)

Considering the fact that adblock is one of the most popular extensions(if not the most), is this really surprising??
I don't even see the ads(except for google text ads).How will i click? :-).

Old People (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016838)

In North Sydney, only Old People Click on Ads!

take 2 coinsiding facts and obscure the link (2, Insightful)

jago25_98 (566531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016840)

woah! shh!

This is one of those things where things have got confused. These 2 facts coinside:

- If you've used your computer for longer then you are likely to have discovered a new browser.
- If you've used your computer for only a short time you are experiencing run away popups and all that you get when you click an AD.

^ combine these 2 and remove how you made the connection and you can make it seem like firefox users are just tight.

Don't descriminate against firefox users! I expect the same could be said to any non-windows browser, and any browser that isn't installed already with PCs you buy at Walmart and PC world.

obvious really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016841)

Firefox users are just smarter

userContent.css (1)

LordXeno (838028) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016847)

Built-in pop-up blocker, AdBlock extension and a hefty userContent.css to block banners, ads and other junk infesting the net has made me a happy surfer!

Another reason (2, Interesting)

T-Keith (782767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016849)

Or they could have Adblock installed, and didn't see the add.

I don't think that it's too devastating for the ad companies, but I think it will encourage them to change their ads to an acceptable format. Popup ads are not an acceptable form of advertisement. Google ads aren't blocked on my Firefox, but almost everything else is.

Another thought (5, Insightful)

q-the-impaler (708563) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016854)

I would think that Firefox users are probably the type of people who wouldn't have clicked on the advertisements anyway. So what's the fuss?

Stats are stretching the truth... (2, Insightful)

switzer (244132) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016863)

The article says that over 4 time more people have EVER clicked on an ad. Because FireFox is reletively new, this is far from an apples-to-apples comparison.

browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016865)

what has this got to do with browsers? if i like what i see in an ad and see a buying opportunity, i will click on it. and the proportion of pop-up ads to the total population of ads served is probably immaterial as the "industry" has tried to cut down on pop-up ads anyway . . no? so how relevant are these stats?

Re:browser? (1)

silverbax (452214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016923)

It may be due to the pop up ad suppression of FireFox. I can't use IE anymore, except for testing.

After switching to FireFox for a while, if you go back to IE you wonder how anyone can browse with all the pop ups flying all over the place. And a lot of clicks could be 'accidental' clicks. I've had popups come up while I was browsing, and I had clicked inside the popup just because I was clicking through quickly.

FireFox is spreading through my own company like wildfire. I really think Microsoft will be forced to address the growing FireFox use before long, but it will take a lot for me to switch over to IE again.

Re:browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016963)

Maybe it's due also because of the great FireFox extensions. Adblock and Flashblock make most webpages ad free and just full of the content you want to see

Just click on the link in the summary... (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016870)

To keep CNET advertisers happy.

Anyway, when Firefox hits 95% market share, and IE drops below 3%, then the lower statistics for Firefox just become the norm again.

Maybe someone should code up a random-ad-clicking extension for Firefox?

Many adverts don't display correctly on firefox (5, Insightful)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016871)

I work for an internet advertising company.

Many adverts aren't rendering correctly on firefox, including some flash/dhtml combos and some dhtml ads.

I don't expect this is the main reason, but it doesn't help.

Also, click through rates and conversion rates are different issues. Probably many more IE users accidentily click on ads or click on them and lose interest than firefox users who are much more likely to only click through on an advert if they are interested in buying. (this is a guess we don't breakdown by browser type at the moment)

Re:Many adverts don't display correctly on firefox (2)

MooseGuy529 (578473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016929)

flash/dhtml combos and some dhtml ads

Good, I never liked those in the first place. It's one thing to put up an ad, but another thing altogether to fill the page with extra junk to embed half your website in the ad.

Try writing XHTML-, CSS-, and W3CDOM-compliant code and then see which browsers it works in.

Thats because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016873)

That's because I use Adblock [] !

Ho ho ho!

I'm wondering if the internet ad revenue economy will just collapse because of my single act of civil disobedience. Perhaps the advertisers and content pages will just get pissy and make jpg's of all content and then put the files in the same directory of ads preventing wild card use.

Oh well it wasn't good content anyways.

most sites i go to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016875)

are either originally clear of ads or I block all the iFrames that contain ads, so sites such as The Register load up beautifully.

Does anybody know where you can get those lists of ad-sites that you can enter into AdBlock so most ads will be blocked by default, without you having to go through the (very small) trouble of blocking them yourself?

What's the difference? (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016876)

What are advertisers worried about?

The nature of users hasn't really changed. Those who click on banners still do and those who block popups at least ignored them before they had means to block them.

The only thing that's really changed is the installed browser base. A user who used to ignore dodgy ads in IE now uses Firefox and still ignores dodgy ads now.

glad for it aswell! (1)

Gizmoguy (818250) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016879)

I ALWAYS use Firefox, I think it's brilliant. I Despise The Ads!!!

There are a number of factors... (4, Interesting)

kaleco (801384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016892) consider. On Slashdot, I definitely click on ads on more than 0.5 percent of page loads. I do it moreso in Firefox since I can load the advertised page in another tab, but the most important reason for me making that click is that the adverts are relevant to me

I think it's important to consider which pages are most popular for IE and Firefox users; it's not a matter of browser but more a matter of the interests of the user. This click-ratio metric would only be relevant if we compared visitors to the same website, and know that the users have the same interests and are just as likely to click. This would be more accurately done in a controlled environment than using pagelogs.

That said, I do accept that Firefox and IE users have different attitudes towards internet use, but the point in TFA about IE users thinking the banner is a system notification made me laugh :)

Next battlefield: Rise of inline popups? (5, Interesting)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016893)

I know there's got to be a better term for them than "inline popups", but I'm not sure what else to call them. I'm talking about pop-up ads that appear *in* the page, on a layer above the page itself, thanks to the wonders of DHTML/CSS/what-have-you.

I've seen a few of these in Firefox. They were actually advertisements for big-name movie releases. They were pretty intrustive and were usually animated, sailing across the page I was trying to view. They were relatively well-behaved, at least, offering a tiny "Close [x]" button in some corner of the ad. Of course there's no guarantee that future ads will be so generous.

Since they don't launch in separate windows, obviously current popup-blocking technology can't touch them. I wonder if this will be the next "big thing" since users and browsers are becoming more successful at blocking popups or tuning them out.

I also wonder how easy they'll be to block. Sadly, I didn't bother to look at the source, but I have a hunch they're served up via a Javascript include file that's hosted on the ad company's servers. If that's how they were done, I guess they would be easy to block... just filter out .js includes from other domains, if that's not something that's already being blocked. If not, they could be really insidious and hard to get rid of.

And in Other News... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016894)

"A recent survey has determined that individuals with an I.Q. over 100 that voted in the last US Presidential election voted overwhelmingly for Kerry."

I guess this means that the US is overpopulated with morons? And we all know only morons use IE.

Careful with that axe, Eugene. Oops, too late.

Block flashing ads (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016896)

Personally, I block any flashing ad I see. That in addition to blocking all popups. This means atwola and doubleclick are dead to me.

I don't mind plain ads and Google-style ads. I'll click on them if they're pitching something which interests me. I've even purchased stuff that way.

But "punch the monkey" is the kind of flashy , content-free ad that drags my attention to it just long enough to piss me off.

Hey advertisers, newsflash: not all publicity is good publicity. If your ad pisses me off, I'm not going to buy your product. Hey advertising agencies, newsflash: I have the power to block you. If you permit ads in a style which pisses me off, block you I will.

Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016903)

Firefox users are twice as good as IE users - 11 is bigger than 5. Idiots.

Is Firefox unethical? (2, Interesting)

cjrichard (837078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016906)

As a sidenote, I use Firefox, and have all the ad blocking stuff set up. But I still can't help but think that it is very unethical to do so. Websites cost money. The site owner may need advertising money for revenue; there is nothing wrong with this. If a browser actively encourages people to never click on adverts, and therefore never help out the sites they frequent, it is bound to have a negative effect on the internet. I just feel that, although annoying, adverts do serve a purpose.

Maybe (1)

robpoe (578975) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016907)

Maybe, we're just at the point where the flashing "click here to win" gets so annoying that we block the offending site.

Or, maybe it's because Firefox makes it so you dont end up with a fake looking Windoze dialog box with the fake X that when u click on it opens 55 popup windows.

Or maybe it's because Firefox blocks the "Ad Chains" where you go to an ad infested site, and it resizes all of your browser windows, then opens 43 popup windows going to all different sites.

Users are speaking. We're taking back the web.

Firefox Vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016908)

The people that use firefox got it to get away from all the damn pop up adnasums that IE used to do nothing to protect you against.

IE people are probably the type to actually click on the "Your computer may have spyware, please click here to get more spyware, virus, and have your comp join our spamming zombie army" banners

Is either user the better for it? Who can honestly say...

why not being honest and say... (1)

Silas is back (765580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016909)

...firefox-users are SMARTER than IE-users?

That's not the REAL feature (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016913)

The "Block images from servername" option is the real godsend. It's always nice to see those lovely gaps in articles where an annoying ad might be. (Yeah, I guess I'm freeloading.)

.11 vs .5 (1, Funny)

Mr Fodder (93517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016914)

Waitaminute.. 11 is bigger then 5! They're just trying to trick us FireFox users into clicking even more, don't fall for their clever ploy.

Numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016916)

I've been following open source software development too long now. The first time I read the summary it didn't make sense because I thought 0.11 was more than 0.5

Adblock Bliss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016917)

*adserv er*

Firefox has to add a new feature... (-1, Troll)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016918)

If a user clicks on a banner ad Firefox should immediately be deleted. Anyone stupid enough to actually click on banner ads doesn't deserve to use Firefox.

Free Web will vanish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016921)

Many of these pages that the funky ad blocker works against are funded by advertising. Sadly the days of venture capital supporting these sites has gone. The hard reality is that you may hate ads but apart from subscription there are very few ways for publishers to make money. Most users are reluctant to share personal information online, so even targetted ads are a problem.

Blocking ads will eventually kill some of your favourite sites.

hosts files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11016922)

IE users can jump on the bandwagon as well by using a hosts file [] to redirect ad requests into oblivion.

On XP, if you never want to see ads from, just add
to "C:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts".

Other means of advertising? (1)

se7en11 (833841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016932)

I'm a sworn believer of Firefox. (even giving it as Christmas presents this year) But won't all this ad/pop-up blocking bring advertisers to use new methods of advertising?

Experience; only themselves to blaim... (5, Funny)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016944)

Begining IE: Ooooo! A button! Why yes, my computer does run slowly!

During IE: wouln't lie to me again, would you? *click!*

Experienced with IE: Liars! Every last one of you!

Begining Firefox: I can block those liars? Wo-ho!

(Yep, I know that you can block adds in's just not integrated or as well done.)

ad blocking. (1)

nblender (741424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016951)

I hate ads as much as the next guy. But there are some sites that I find of value that are supported by ad revenue. I don't want to block ads on those sites. I run a popular 'portal' for enthusiasts of the vehicle I own.. There are 4 of us that run this site. We do it as strictly a volunteer project. But we ship out over a million emails a day on a half dozen lists, keep 10s of gigabytes of archives consisting primarily of technical information, and run a web server with a forum and technical downloads... Our user community voluntarily contributes a few thousand dollars a year to help the site run, but we top up our revenue with ads. Our users understand that we're not generating ad revenue so we can buy cool wheels for our trucks, it's to keep the site running...

Those of you blocking ads on slashdot better be paying for your subscription.

General experience (1)

Bilzmoude (811717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016960)

Aside from being tech-savy, I think Firefox users tend to be simply more experienced users. Users who have been using the web longer have determined the features they like (tab browsing, module integration, simplicity, skins, etc), and the features they dislike (advertizements, pop-ups, single-tab browsing, etc). For this reason, a more experienced user is likely to latch on to mozilla. Without even being savy, they know what they like, and they know that clicking on an advertisement will only waste their time.

In another sidenote... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016965)

...the advertiser complaints that people refuse to believe the advertisement, disapprove of its contents
and/or actually not buy the product they are advertising!
The advertiser believes that this behaviour is shocking and unjust and it should stop immediately.

It lobbies actively to lawmakers to introduce a new law that will force customers to actually buy every 3rd product they see an advertisement for - or they have to pay a commission of 5% productvalue to the advertiser directly for the hard work they put in the advertisement.

In other news... Bill Gates admits he runs Linux everyday.

Firefox users... (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 9 years ago | (#11016966)

Firefox users tend to be savier users I believe. I can't prove it just as they can't prove cause between firefox users not being convinced to click on ads. Anyway, if they are savier, they won't click on false ads that look like windows widgets and crap.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?