×

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!

Floaters are the New Pop-Ups

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the oh-good-i-was-getting-tired-of-actually-reading-content dept.

The Internet 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

613 comments

Not a problem (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776672)

With Mozilla [mozilla.org]/Firefox [mozilla.org] these new ads are actually not a problem. Just use a userContent.css [mozilla.org] file to block them.

For example, I found some that use divs with IDs, so I just added something like:

div#GF__p_0,
div#floatpop { display: none !important;}

And, poof, they're gone. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out what to block, but the Webdeveloper extension [chrispederick.com] can help quite a bit.

Re:Not a problem (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776920)

That's helpful, I've been resorting to disabling javascript for some of them, but it screws with some sites i need javascript enabled for.

There's alwasy some pricks trying to ruin the web for everyone else.

Floaters are not evil. (5, Insightful)

FTL (112112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776680)

There's no problem with floaters, they are no more evil than with blinking text, bad colour schemes or any other number of ugly special effects [fraser.name]. They are simply an attribute of the website. If you don't like them (I hate them), click the back button and go somewhere else.

The problem with popups is that clicking the back button was not enough, one had to clean up the mess -- sometimes a mess that would keep respawning itself. Floaters look superficially similar to popups, but floaters are completely contained within the window. That makes them just another (usually bad) design feature.

Re:Floaters are not evil. (0)

stubear (130454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776819)

"...bad colour schemes..."

you mean like /., particularly the games and IT sections??

Re:Floaters are not evil. (2, Funny)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776833)

Alternatively, you can think of them as popups that stay contained within your browser window. Just think, the tabbed browsing revolution has finally arrived in the world of popups! Thank you Mozilla!

Re:Floaters are not evil. (5, Interesting)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776906)

I'm not saying that these ads are evil, but I question the wisdom of forcing ads on people who have taken steps to block them. What does the advertiser expect to accomplish? If their site is struggling so much that the only way they can keep it online is by forcing obnoxious ads on people, the internet would be a better place without them. Make your ads relevant and not super annoying, and maybe people will actually be interested in them.

Re:Floaters are not evil. (1)

Mant (578427) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776915)

They are as anoying as popups if you want to read the actual content of the web page without something getting in the way.

Sure you can just not read it, but if you are looking for something in particular and following a search, and you think the page has the answers, are you really going to go elsewhere when finding an elsewhere could take some time.

windows (3, Interesting)

fideli (861469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776684)

I saw one of those on my OS X screen the other day. It actually looked like a Windows window. Kinda funny, really. Nostalgic for me anyway.

Easy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776685)

Disable JavaScript!

Re:Easy (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776761)

So what if it is a flash floater?

Re:Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776839)

Use the "Flash click to view" extention [mozilla.org]. No more autoplaying Flash for me.

Re:Easy (1)

Simon Lyngshede (623138) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776923)

Install FlashBlock/Flash-Click-To-Play or whatever the name is these days. Or simply avoid installing Flash.

I never needed Flash for anything. People keep telling me that you can do useful things in Flash, but I never actually seen it.

Rate of change correlation (3, Interesting)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776690)

I bet the rate of change for pup-up decline was correlated to the rate of change to Mozilla users until Microsoft SP2 was forced to offer pop up blocking. The floaters can have their day and again Mozy users have a slight advantage [mozdev.org]. If IE users get tired of it then I imagine the only company in an real danger would be Macromedia from people simply refusing to install advertisement generating software on their own machine.

Re:Rate of change correlation (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776810)

I'm sure Mozilla is part of it, but there's a much wider trend of pop-up blocking -- the ISP blockers, especially AOL's, were probably the biggest factor.

"Remove this object" (5, Insightful)

sl8r (104278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776692)

There's a nice lil extension to firefox called "Remove this object" that gets rid of those stupid "floaters" (i call 'em div layers, only cos that's what they are).

Hey! (0, Redundant)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776693)

Hey! Adware companies: Don't you get it? We don't want to see you. Go away and no, we don't want to see your little ads popping up in front of our eyes everytime we look for information. What kind of person thinks its OK to force others to see things they are not interested in. Do something with your life productive.

Re:Hey! (2, Insightful)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776765)

Those that provide you with that interesting content need to feed their kids too.

Would you prefer to have everything like NYTimes.com instead? There's only so much BugMeNot can handle.

Re:Hey! (2, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776828)

Those that provide you with that interesting content need to feed their kids too. Would you prefer to have everything like NYTimes.com instead? There's only so much BugMeNot can handle.

One word: Subscriptions. I have subscriptions for the news outlets I rely on for my information (including Slashdot).

Re:Hey! (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776875)

Would you watch a TV station that played its ads over the show, cutting in at random moments so you miss key dialogue? Me neither. There are ways to host ads on Web sites that don't annoy the hell out of the user.

Re:Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776782)

What kind of person thinks its OK to force others to see things they are not interested in?

Advertisers?

Re:Hey! (2, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776785)

What kind of person thinks its OK to force others to see things they are not interested in
Advertisers and, more importantly, the people who want a return on the investment they have made on their web site. If you don't like popovers vote with your mouse and don't visit those sites.

Re:Hey! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776797)

If you're not interested then get the hell out of my site.

Re:Hey! (1)

redheaded_stepchild (629363) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776853)

They're called the marketing department. To them, any chance to put an ad in front of your eyes is another buck for them. And guess what? They don't care if you like it. In fact, they'll usually respond just as positively to an overtly negative reaction from the public. Why? Because that means they got noticed, and these fiendish demons live for attention.

Re:Hey! (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776854)

The only way to stop advertising is for advertising to stop working. Human nature is unlikely to universally change so fundamentally in the near future.

Re:Hey! (0, Flamebait)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776925)

What kind of person thinks its OK to force others to see things they are not interested in.

What kind of person thinks its OK to force a site to only display precisely and only what they, a selfish serve-me user, wants?

This should be in MSIE section. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776695)

Why am I getting this? I subscribed to IT section because I am interested in IT news for nerds.

Re:This should be in MSIE section. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776790)

MS bots modded me down.

Microsoft is going down the drain! Shhhh. Don't tell the stock-holders. Those who know are slowly liquidating their shares!

Re:This should be in MSIE section. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776824)

MS is going down the drain like a turd. C# was a complete failure and nobody uses NET. They'll switch to making games for XBOX in the end.

AdBlock (2, Informative)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776697)

I guess the question is if something like AdBlock can filter out these without getting a lot of false positives, making the browser render of a lot of pages incorrectly.

Re:AdBlock (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776804)

> I guess the question is if something like AdBlock can filter out these without
> getting a lot of false positives, making the browser render of a lot of pages
> incorrectly.

It should soon become apparant to sites which use floaters other than for advertisting junk that people aren't viewing them and that it should not be assumed that the content be read.

Hopefully these things will be handled by AdBlock or Firefox's built in pop-up stopper such that I can allow popups from certain sites. Failing that I'll just have to download the prefbar thing so i can turn off javascript (assuming that's how it's being done) on individual sites.

crap (-1, Redundant)

kjhobin (862566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776702)

i hate thoese things you can never close them, they dont have a close button. you always have to click on them!!! plus pop-uo blockers dont work on them!!

Flash suppression (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776703)

Flash ads flying around, climbing out of the page are the worst. Anyone know of a quick Firefox plugin to turn Flash animations off until I want to actually watch one?

Re:Flash suppression (5, Informative)

cswiii (11061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776805)

I haven't had it installed lately because my adblock does a pretty good job of blocking flash that I don't want to see, but
flashblock [mozilla.org] is what I used to use... it blocks out flash until you click on it to view.

Re:Flash suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776809)

There's a plugout: Uninstall Flash.

Re:Flash suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776835)

install a 64bit OS

--
fretn

Re:Flash suppression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776864)

Older adblock: *.swf* - if you don't want to uninstall flash. Or of course the flashblock extension, or the latest adblock version.

One advantage (2, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776705)

The legitimate, non-advertising uses of these things are so limited (at least, compared to pop up windows), that the ad-blocking software will catch up with them in no time, and most people will lose nothing by deactivating the appropriate bits of javascript.

Obviously... (3, Interesting)

larsoncc (461660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776709)

I think that at this point, it's obvious we need a "block javascript from this domain" extension or a "block javascript from this web folder" extension.

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.

Re:Obviously... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776886)

> think that at this point, it's obvious we need a "block javascript from this
> domain" extension or a "block javascript from this web folder" extension.

I've mentioned that here a few times but I always get told to use PrefBar, which really is no good as it's not the same. Just a regular expression for the URL would be fine.

I wish... (4, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776713)

I wish that the pop-over ads would only pop-over when I hovered over them... a bunch of ads from Dell I've seen seem to do that... and I appreciate that... it sits there like a banner, and when I hover over it, it expands and does it's nice flash ad... but the ones that do it 5 seconds after the sight loads (car adverts on CNN anyone?) I really hate... it's annoying and ensures that I will never consider watching it...

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.

Re:I wish... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776753)

Ahh, the rage of the /.er

Re:I wish... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776802)

Quasar, in his Recliner of Rage!!

Raise your hands (5, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776718)

How many internet marketers would, if the technology were available, opt to have a physical hand come out of someone's monitor and slap them in the face until they read your ad?

I just wonder where some marketers draw the line.

Re:Raise your hands (3, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776823)

> How many internet marketers would, if the technology were available, opt to have a physical hand come out of someone's monitor and slap them in the face until they read your ad?
>
>I just wonder where some marketers draw the line.

"There's a line?"
- Some marketoon

I can only say this: Given that marketroids tend to surf with IE, Flash enabled, and Javascript enabled, and I tend to surf with Mozilla, Flash disabled, and Javascript disabled (through the use of the PrefBar extension), and have never seen a "floater" anywhere other than my toilet bowl, I'd very much like to see an over-the-Internet face-slapping technology developed.

Re:Raise your hands (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776861)

I just wonder where some marketers draw the line.
--
they don't. they do what it takes to sell sell sell. They do it because it puts money in their pocket, and pays for the stuff you are trying to read. As long as the media owners allow them to do it, and the technology is there to exploit, they will exploit all of it. The best possible way for everyone to fight this stuff is to *never* click on it.

Then, as in 1999-2001 advertisers will realize that internet marketing is crap, and the bubble will burst again, which incidentally will cause the media owners to not be able to make money, and have to shut down, or cut back on the content they provide.

If you want the good, you have to take the bad. Content costs money, a lot of it. If you can't pay people to write it, where do you think it will come from?

Those annoying ads, pay for the content behind them. If you don't like the ads, live without the content.

They annoy me as much as the next guy, but they are there because they have to be and I understand that. Unfortunately money makes the world go round, not idealism.

Re:Raise your hands (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776880)

I just wonder where some marketers draw the line.
Nowhere... just look at certain 'marketer' spammers, who are willing to break the law, literally piss of millions upon millions of computer users, and render a uncredibly useful tool unusable, just to peddle some h3rb4l v14gra? Similarly, some marketers would chuck flyers from an aircraft until we'd be knee-deep in them, if it would bring them a 0.2% increase in sales (and if they could do it for free). They have just one goal: get your attention.

You've probably gone and given them the idea... In a month's time we'll see discounted PCs with that hand fitted.

Re:Raise your hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776894)

How many internet marketers would, if the technology were available, opt to have a physical hand come out of someone's monitor and slap them in the face until they read your ad?

Depends on how many like getting beaten to a bloddy pulp with a baseball bat.

Different Browser (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776722)

Yeah, whatever these things are ultimately called, "floaters" seems appropriate for a number of reasons, most of them scatalogical.

But that's why you use a web browser (pretty much any browser that isn't IE) with a button that disables/enables Flash animations at a single click. Just one more reason to migrate to FireFox or whatever, I guess... (And if you must have IE compatibility for some reason, just overlay it with Avant [avantbrowser.com].)

Free Sony PSPs [tinyurl.com] from Gratis.

Even more annoying ... (5, Insightful)

cablepokerface (718716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776731)

... are the 'in-between' pages with advertising. You are reading an article, want to go from page 2 to 3 and boom, you end up on a completely different page.

Re:Even more annoying ... (1)

Arctic Dragon (647151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776836)

Even worst, IGN [ign.com] has a advertisement splash page! websites are becoming like VHS movies, where you have to 'fastforward' before seeing the actual content.

Article Text (3, Informative)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776744)

If you happened upon nj.com in the last month, you might have noticed a clucking penguin waddling across the computer screen, stumbling over text as it promoted a local utility company.

On a cricket league chat board in New Zealand, exasperated users have been deluged with floating squares that try to interest them in mattresses, dating services and officially licensed trinkets from the "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy.

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.

The floater ads, often using a computer's Macromedia Flash Player to run, overlay the content of the page rather than spawning new windows. They have been around since 2001, but their rise has been abetted by the growing use of high-speed Internet connections, allowing them to play with greater ease.

Floaters are one example of a variety of online ads known in the industry as rich media. Some variants include banner ads that expand to show graphics and streaming video when the cursor is waved over them; a tamer version packs the video and graphics into a static, or polite, banner. All have a common characteristic: they cannot be categorically blocked by existing technology.

To many, they are just as irritating as pop-up ads, if not more so. On the New Zealand cricket chat board, one user declared, "This form of advertising is without a doubt the most ridiculous and offensive form I have ever come across."

But as with pop-ups (before pop-up blockers), their appeal to advertisers is simple: they get people to click, usually transporting them to the advertiser's site. While static Web ads typically have "click through" rates of 0.5 percent of viewers, according to numerous industry studies, the rate for pop-ups and floaters is 3 percent to 5 percent, though some studies suggest that many of those clicks are attempts to get rid of the ad.

According to Nielsen/NetRatings, the sites on which such ads were most common in the year ended in December were three Microsoft sites - www.msn.com, www.msnbc.com and Hotmail - followed by espn.com and www.yahoo.com.

Although most advertisers and the sites where the ads appear seem happy with the use of the floater ads, recent research suggests problems. A study of 2,500 British Internet users released last month by OMD UK found that just as many Web users (44 percent) were annoyed with floaters as they were with pop-ups. Many major sites, like nytimes.com and www.msn.com, limit the number of times a person is shown such an ad. (At nytimes.com, the limit is once per visit to the site.)

"We want to do something that's informative and entertaining as opposed to being annoying," said Joanne Bradford, vice president and chief media revenue officer for msn.com. "That's our guiding principle." To that end, the company introduced on Feb. 1 a design that limited the number of ads on the main page. (Ms. Bradford would not say by how much.) The action, she noted, did prompt "a little bit of squawking" from advertisers.

Some are trying to figure out other ways to stop the onslaught. Mozilla, designer of the popular (and free) Web browser Firefox, which offers a pop-up blocker, is trying to block floater ads as well, but has so far been unsuccessful, said Chris Hofmann, director of engineering for the Mozilla Foundation. "It really is an arms race," he said.

Jarvis Coffin, chief executive of Burst Media, a company that sells advertising for more than 2,000 Web sites, said that even though he is a fan of the "rich media" ads, he warns that advertisers should understand that they cannot deluge people with the technology without consequence. "Just because you can do it doesn't make it a smart thing to do," he said.

Damnit... (-1, Offtopic)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776778)

I honestly meant to post this as AC. Someone mod the shit out of this post to balance out the karma of the universe.

Who Clicks On These? (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776746)

I believe I speak for many when I say
"Who the Hell actually clicks on all the popups,popovers,floaters,ads and logos anyway?"

I can safely say the only time I click on an ad when online, is when my mouse slips?
I suppose it must be like spam. The percentage of suckers is incredibly low, but if ads are 10% of internet content, then you'll get a few hits.
Still though, I mean, what kind of person goes around saying "Oh! I do want a cheaper morgage!!" *CLICK*. Do any slashdotters have some amusing tales of such perpetually clueless lusers in their domains?

Re:Who Clicks On These? (1)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776856)

Idunno.. maybe I'm weak, but sometimes I just can't resist the urge to punch the monkey in the face or play the little Orbitz.com baseball/golf/whatever flash games in their ads.

Re:Who Clicks On These? (1)

saintp (595331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776914)

Punching monkeys is fun, but I prefer to see if I can miss the monkey, and still get taken to the site. Sometimes it works, but sometimes you actually have to hit the damn dirty ape.

Re:Who Clicks On These? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776881)

If I'm looking for a company that offers a specific service, I use Google's natural listings.

Sometimes, though, a really effective ad will earn a rare click. I've clicked top banner ads on Slashdot for ServerBeach. Some Flash ads are practically full-blown interactive games - and I've been interested enough to click 'em and play. Note that I've never actually bought anything from any of these ads, but I know people who have.

CSS + Javascript (5, Insightful)

rdc_uk (792215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776752)

Ultimately, what is required is for the browser (whichever one) to control what elements of CSS and Javascript sites are allowed to use.

Ergo; the user can simply dissallow CSS allowing flying elements ("float"-ing is a different thing, you see).

There needs to be a definite shift from the web-site having "control" unless the browser is patched to snatch it back, towards the web-page being permitted to do its thing within certain boundaries (boundaries that the user is in control of).

The rush to provide "web applications" runs contary to this; web pages are DATA, not programs and the further we go from that state, the more invasive mal-intentioned pages can be (example; ActiveX)

Floaters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11776754)

Quite aptly named if you ask me. Seeing as how both types are inherently distasteful...

Flashblock (3, Informative)

alnjmshntr (625401) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776760)

Many of those floaters are created using flash, so use Flashblock to prevent them from showing.
Flashblock and AdBlock == good surfing experience.

Slashdot links to NY Times (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776764)

I like how New York Times has adapted to /.'ers and their care for reading through long articles.
This time, the non-membership Slashdot version seeems to be:
Floater Ads, the Cousins to Pop-Ups, Evade the Blockers

By JONATHAN MILLER
Published: February 24, 2005

Floater ads, which open new windows and clutter virtual desktops, can evade the pop-up blockers that many Web browsers have incorporated.
Brilliant!

I don't mind them... (2, Interesting)

Rendus (2430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776771)

I don't mind in-page ads of any sort nearly as much as I mind the new windows. The in-window ads aren't any more effort to work around, unless they block the content of the page (which is becoming more common, unfortunately).

The problem with popups wasn't the one new window.. It's playing Whack-A-Mole with the 32 pops spawned by that one.

Speaking of which... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776772)

I had a real "Sir, is your computer plugged in?" moment driven by one of those a while ago. The following events coincided:
  • Due to firewall issues I have to play Live365 streams through a chain [slashdot.org] of their player, WinAmp and finally sound through WMP.
  • I must have accidentally scroll-wheeled the WMP volume to zero.
  • At the same time I hit that horrible "floater" ad with the periodic buzzing fly and (this part I don't quite get) the sound persisted even after the window had been closed.
So those events converge, and I'm getting stream to connect buffer and start playing but the only thing in my headphones was periodic buzzing! That took a little while to debug, I can tell you.

The name everyone would agree on (1, Funny)

nslu (532403) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776783)

I'd say the word poopovers describes them the best.

Not effective anyway (4, Interesting)

DrinkingIllini (842502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776784)

Don't these people look at any research, or are these just web developers with no actual marketing skills? Simple text based ads have been proven to be more effective than any form of internet advertisement, why do you think Google uses them?

Fax/printer spam (2, Interesting)

WickedClean (230550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776789)

I'm surprised nobody has come up with someting to hijack my printer and print out color ads for crappy vacations and stock purchase news. We get the faxes every day here at work

Filtering options (1)

edremy (36408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776798)

Between Firefox, the AdBlock extension and the Proximitron web proxy [proxomitron.info], it's a rare ad that actually manages to get to my desktop.

Keep trying guys- my block lists will just get longer...

Sollution. (4, Insightful)

Tetsugaku-San (717792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776800)

Turn off Flash - I've never found a convincing argument to have it other than the odd well made animation - and these are few and far between, turning flash on and off should be a lot easier but aprt from that -it works.

This will get worse (2, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776825)

People keep saying "Firefox cures ads! Adblock and such!". Well the more popular firefox gets (I've used it since the Phoniex days and have noticed this as it's got more popular), the more people will try and break it. This is also the downside to being open source, while everyone can view the source code, it also means everyone can see the holes in it.

The more people that use firefox the more things like this will pop up, so we'll end up playing catch up over and over (and lets face it, the release yesterday proved how bad the update system is right now) untill people get sick of it and use a new browser which fixs this.

Now watch the post get 12 million replies saying "Yea like Usenet and Windows! Firefox is going to die hahahaha".

OUTSTANDING idea! (1, Funny)

WinDoze (52234) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776827)

All Marketing-related crap should be given sphincter-related names! Floaters, Sinkers, Double-Flushers, SBD's. Man, I wish they'd thought of this years ago.

The difficulty of getting HTML source (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776837)

The big problem I have with fighting them is that a "view source" only gives you the raw page source, not the triply-indirected javascript-edited version that's actually being used by the web browser. Trying to wget won't help because you'll probably just get a different ad.

Is there any way to use CSS to prevent a SCRIPT tag from getting executed on the basis of the SRC URL? "display: none" doesn't help when a script inserts its HTML somewhere else.

In the meantime, I'm trying to right-click to find where the various image parts are so I can add them to my list of IFRAME and SRC display-nones.

Who does this? Why do they do it? (4, Insightful)

Mirk (184717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776838)

I just don't get it. What kind of moronic company would pay money to "advertise" its product by irritating the heck out of everyone who sees it? If there is a more cast-iron way of making me hate a product so much that I will never buy it, it's by having it get in my face when I am trying to read something.

These "floaters" remind me of that childish thing where someone leaps around thrusting their hands in front of your face going, "Not touching! Can't get mad!" Oh, yeah. That behaviour is really going to make me want to buy your product.

Since "floater" is (in England, anyway) slang for a turd that can't be flushed away, the name is at least appropriate.

Lawnmowers (1)

benja (623818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776841)

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).

Hey, I can agree on a name! Poopovers it is!

With Opera it's not a problem (3, Interesting)

MrCam (97813) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776866)

To fix popover ad's, stupid colors or layers they overlap so I can't read a page, I just click the the little user mode button. The background turns to white, all the text becomes black with the standard font and all the bad CSS crap gets turned off. And if I need it back I just click to turn Author mode back on.
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.

adnlock (1)

SpongeBobLinuxPants (840979) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776873)

Does anyone know for sure if Adblock for Firefox blocks pop-over/floating/whatever ads? I use it and havn't noticed any for a while. I also have ad free /. reading :)

floaters & popups (1)

commo1 (709770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776890)

What a way to start a Friday morning.... glad it wasn't Monday. Floaters & popups? Wow. There's a mental image you don't want before a little Java!

Seriously, though.... We need some kind of legislation/senate bill to curb those doing these things. Perhaps a tax on Internet ads, I don't know. Not a popular suggestion, I know, but maybe it's the only way to stop neddless and RECKLESS advertising.

One advantage that pop-up ads (of one kind or another) have over mass emails is a generally reliable traceable route back to the originator.

du'h (2)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776912)

The problem is that many sites use this method legitimately - as a web designer its frustrating to see this getting abused. Yes the web shouldn't need flashy designs and and all this crap that allows advertisers to push their content but the fact is it does and designers are under allot of pressure by their bosses to do it. Even if everyone decided one day that enough was enough and turned off all css/javascript/flash and style and just read straight text, the advertisers would still find a way to get their noses in - article text would be full of random references to viagra and hosting solutions!

there are various extensions you can use to remove page elements with a single click but automatic filtering is going to need a bit more work, advertisers are going to have to learn that if they screw with the user then only the stupid and easily persuaded masses are going to buy their products.... oh wait.

So, they failed to learn the lesson (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11776931)

The lesson was: Users don't want to be pissed off by annoying crap adds and not how to find new ways to piss them off.

They should learn something from Googles adds.
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...