OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Security Patents News United States Music
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Aug 22
(1 recent)

apple
Aug 22
(7 recent)

articles
Aug 23
(27 recent)

askslashdot
Aug 22
(8 recent)

books
Aug 22
(2 recent)

bsd
Aug 16

developers
Aug 23
(6 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Aug 22
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Aug 22
(5 recent)

yro
Aug 22
(2 recent)

No Pop-up Blocking in Netscape 7.0
NetscapePosted by michael on Thursday August 15, @01:36AM
from the market-share-apparently-unimportant dept.
jsled writes "C|Net /News.com article details how the forthcoming Netscape 7.0 will not include the nifty pop-up blocking sported in Mozilla, as AOL depends on pop-up ads for annoy^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing to their "valued" customers. The MozillaZine story and comments have a couple of extra, interesting points of detail: how to easily restore the functionality and how some sites get around the popup blocking." Update: 08/15 12:45 GMT by J: In related news, Doug Isenberg asks over on GigaLaw: Are Pop-Up Ads Illegal? The news publishers who say "yes" say that turning off graphics in your web browser should be illegal too.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· C|Net /News.com article
· Netscape 7.0
· Mozilla
· MozillaZine story and comments
· restore the functionality
· J
· Are Pop-Up Ads Illegal?
· More on Netscape
· Also by michael

<  In Case of Armageddon, Break Out the GIS | First Man To Mars?  >
No Pop-up Blocking in Netscape 7.0 | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 575 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
the million dollar ? (Score:3, Interesting)
by sketchkid on Thursday August 15, @01:41AM (#4074885)
(User #555690 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 09, @02:32PM)
is there any real internet business model from the standpoint of a website that offers a service but not cult membership?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Direct link to the pop-up restore... (Score:5, Informative)
by edgrale (edgrale@pp.htv.NOSPAM.fi) on Thursday August 15, @01:43AM (#4074898)
(User #216858 Info)
(Original) http://ufaq.org/files/adblocker.xpi

Pleas post mirrors in this thread.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
old news (Score:1)
by dcstimm on Thursday August 15, @01:45AM (#4074905)
(User #556797 Info)
I noticed this along time ago in the Netscape 7 rc1....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How to restore functionality (Score:4, Insightful)
by tomRakewell on Thursday August 15, @01:47AM (#4074911)
(User #412572 Info)
Install Mozilla.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why Complain? (Score:1)
by ThePyromaniak (<moc.ketanax> <ta> <drappehsn>) on Thursday August 15, @01:48AM (#4074919)
(User #561029 Info | http://www.slashdot.org/)
It seems to me that theres no reason to complain about this.

1.)Theres an easy fix

2.)If mozilla has it...go use mozilla, I dont see how that takes a rocket scientist

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
another mirror for adblocker.xpi (Score:1)
by hajmola on Thursday August 15, @01:49AM (#4074920)
(User #82709 Info)
http://techaholic.net/adblocker.xpi
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I'll say it once more... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Valar (kungfoo@gameboxYEATS.net minus poet) on Thursday August 15, @01:49AM (#4074923)
(User #167606 Info | http://www.mp3.com/AtomicPlayboy/)
for those of you who have not heard this already. Don't like it? USE SOMETHING ELSE. Netscape can do whatever it wants with its software. Mind you, they might do something else if people quit using the software. So perhaps, instead of compaining that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, like it seems to do three times a day on slashdot, seek alternatives. Thank you.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Pop-Down (Score:4, Informative)
by Devil's BSD on Thursday August 15, @01:51AM (#4074932)
(User #562630 Info | http://www.mstc.fayette.k12.ky.us/~rchui)
For those of you who use M$ Internal Exploder, Pop-Down [rr.com] is a nifty program. Relatively small memory footprint, a quick download, freeware. I use it on my computer-illiterate mom's p-120, and it works a whole lot better & faster than a lot of other programs that have to match the title bar with a database. This thing, although crude, lets you limit the number of windows. You also have to hold down CTRL when you want a new window to be formed. Worth a try, I use it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Pop-Down by rseuhs (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @08:44AM
    • Re:Pop-Down by gfxguy (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @09:35AM
      • Re:Pop-Down by gfxguy (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @11:53AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Pop-Down by ceejayoz (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @09:57AM
  • Webwasher.. by steppin_razor_LA (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @12:27PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I switched to Mozilla.. (Score:5, Interesting)
by CySurflex on Thursday August 15, @01:52AM (#4074940)
(User #564206 Info | http://www.g4tv.com/)
I recently switched to mozilla after using IE for quite a few years as my default browser. The pop-up blocker won me over.

Being a web developer, this causes me to primarly develop with Mozilla, and then leave the other browser testing to the QA cycle. Ultimately this causes sites I develop to be "optomized for Mozilla", which in turn may cause more users to use Mozilla.

So although currently the percentage of the userbase using Mozilla is low, I would guess that the percentage of web developers is much higher - meaning we are at the begining of a growth cycle.

-CySurflex

my dads web site.. [ddeonline.com]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
misnomer: "open unrequested windows" (Score:1)
by victorvodka on Thursday August 15, @01:53AM (#4074942)
(User #597971 Info)
Actually, disabling "open unrequested windows" also turns off the javascr!pt:window.open in href tags as well as the windows that open in body onLoad events. I'd prefer it if I could just turn off the onLoad windows and still get the popups i specifically request. If I felt like putting on my C++ hipboots and wading into Mozilla source, hell, I'd change this myself.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Disable JavaScript for Happiness (Score:4, Insightful)
by madburn on Thursday August 15, @01:53AM (#4074943)
(User #35976 Info)
Disabling JavaScript is the best solution.

Ask yourself, what has JavaScript done to improve the web browsing experience? Sure rollovers are cute, but is it worth pop up ads and page trapping and filling your screen with full-size windows to a dozen pr0n sites?

I wish browser makers would focus more on implementing useful things like CSS2. Browsers are for viewing content, not doing tricks.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is such a non-problem. Just edit prefs.js (Score:5, Informative)
by ishmalius on Thursday August 15, @01:53AM (#4074944)
(User #153450 Info)
NS7 will be able to block popups just the same. There just might not be a GUI for it! ;-0

Just enter this line in the prefs.js file:

user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);

Fight the Man!

Mozilla Power!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How to disable unrequested (pop-up/behind) windows (Score:5, Informative)
by LuxuryYacht on Thursday August 15, @01:54AM (#4074945)
(User #229372 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
How to disable unrequested (pop-up/behind) windows:

Add this line to your user.js or prefs.js:

user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);

OR

Download the adblocker.xpi file.

http://techaholic.net/adblocker.xpi

When you download the adblocker.xpi file in Netscape 7, it will add .txt to the filename (adblocker.xpi.txt). Before saving the file, remove .txt from the filename and save the file to disk. Then in Netscape 7 click File | Open to install.

In Netscape 7 click Edit | Preferences | Advanced - Scripts & Windows to unselect or select the Open unrequested windows.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Popups should be considered spam... (Score:2)
by t0qer on Thursday August 15, @01:55AM (#4074954)
(User #230538 Info | http://www.kaillera....topic=1743&forum=5&0 | Last Journal: Thursday August 15, @03:29AM)

Every time another window opens, another instance of the browser has to be launched which can result in an overload of resources to the machine.
 
This link [absurd.org] is purely an educational tool, it will continually launch popups until your machine
comes to a halt. Unless you're good with kill or task manager don't click it. A reboot and your machine will be fine.
 
I think by law, ads should be rendered on the same page as the article and not in a popup or popunder window.
 
Sites like slash should have a "Yellow Pages" of ads. I'd go browse a bunch of banners if they were presented like my yellow pages if I needed a service.
 
Hmm, maybe we should ask Stallman if popups can be considered spam.



[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Possible backlash... (Score:2, Flamebait)
by Alea on Thursday August 15, @01:56AM (#4074959)
(User #122080 Info)
I like and use Mozilla, but do not use the popup blocking. If a site needs the revenue of popups and I don't value the site enough to tolerate them, I won't go there.

What I worry about is that if too many people block popup, the sites will turn around and block that browser (i.e. Mozilla or modified Netscape 7.0).

Of course, you could always hack Mozilla to pretend to be IE... :)

Bottom line: Sites need revenue and will fight to get it. Think twice before blocking ads at a site you like.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Possible backlash... by WetCat (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @02:03AM
  • Use proxomitron... by Critical_ (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @02:07AM
  • Re:Possible backlash... by _Sprocket_ (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @02:22AM
  • Re:Possible backlash... by orthogonal (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @02:24AM
    • Re:Possible backlash... (Score:5, Insightful)
    by 90XDoubleSide (<ten.liamliah> <ta> <ediselbuodxytenin>) on Thursday August 15, @02:24AM (#4075058)
    (User #522791 Info | http://homepage.mac.com/stevemsmart/)
    You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. If they want to display a small pop-up to show, for example, a little help note, when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser? If you're using a browser without popup blocking, I could just send you to a page that opens 1,001 popup windows, forcing you to kill your browser program (or restart your entire machine if it didn't have preemptive multitasking). I don't block any regular ads; I fully agree that sites need to be allowed to pay their writers, and I don't have a problem with them inserting even gigantic ads. Have any of you read a magazine or newspaper lately? Most other mediums devote more than a 1x8" square to advertizing, and as long as web pages keep the same kind of ratio of advertizing to content as other mediums I have no quarrel. But I would not tolerate a newspaper that used a CO2 cannister to propel advertizing and confetti all over my living room.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Possible backlash... by Kredal (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @03:03AM
    • Re:Possible backlash... by jmd! (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @03:36AM
    • Re:Possible backlash... by mfago (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @03:37AM
      • Re:Possible backlash... (Score:5, Interesting)
      by lpontiac on Thursday August 15, @03:38AM (#4075237)
      (User #173839 Info | http://www.sullust.net/)
      Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files.

      "Content" companies don't believe you should have control over the device you use to access web pages (or movies, or music..). For the user to grant or deny "permission" is a ludicrous concept to them.

      I think "Trustworthy Computing", Palladium etc will go some of the way towards addressing this - you will slowly have less and less control over the viewing platform. If you choose to use an alternate viewing platform (eg a pre-Palladium PC), you simply won't be able to view a lot of things. If you attempt to get your old computer to display new content, or to wrest back control of a computer that implements Digital Restriction Management, you'll be in violation of the DMCA (or your local equivalent).

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Possible backlash... by skryche (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @06:01AM
  • Re:Possible backlash... by jjoyce (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @12:32PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Bad karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
by outlier on Thursday August 15, @01:58AM (#4074963)
(User #64928 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Imagine that being wildly successful in your career meant that you failed 95% of the time. A baseball player getting called out 19 out of every 20 trips to the plate. Yet, in the world of direct (snail) mail, that's considered a successful campaign. So, if you mailed out 1,000,000 letters to 950,000 who threw it away, you'd think you were a direct marketing stud.

Online advertising is even worse, yet rather than realizing that people are probably not interested in your product (they would have clicked the banner ad), you figure you'll pop up extra windows. It's like reading a magazine and throwing out the first 8 magazine subscription cards but then seeing the 9th and saying "hmm, if they're willing to go through that much effort maybe I should subscribe."

And the best part is that people who figure out new surface area to plaster with ads consider themselves to be "creative." Bullsh-t. You are a hack. You'd be more creative if you were in a boy band or producing a reality TV show...

Bill Hicks said it best, "If you're in marketing, kill yourself."

Despite what you may be thinking, marketing people are not insects. Technically, they are arachnids.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Simple (Score:1)
by zapfie on Thursday August 15, @01:58AM (#4074968)
(User #560589 Info)
Opera's had pop-up blocking for a while- and easily accessible too, for sites with legit popups. Just press F12, and click refuse pop up windows. I can understand AOL Time Warner's hesitation to include this feature in Netscape 7, but it sure comes in handy for porn sites. :P
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
yet another mirror (Score:1)
by hajmola on Thursday August 15, @01:59AM (#4074972)
(User #82709 Info)
http://www.hmetzger.de/adblocker.xpi [hmetzger.de]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Offtopic pure grungy antique hot fun! (Score:4, Funny)
by Hunter Rose on Thursday August 15, @02:03AM (#4074986)
(User #18860 Info)

I am reading this lovely /. news item about Netscape 7.0 in my freshly installed Netscape 1.0.

The only problems are the gray background and the & n b s p's everywhere.


This is pretty keen!



Spoon!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
who cares? (Score:1)
by evil-empir3 on Thursday August 15, @02:05AM (#4074989)
(User #590188 Info)
This is a non story since hardly anyone uses either Mozilla or Netscape. Seriously, my friends are all Linux freaks, but none of us use either.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
If you're competent enough to upgrade a browser, (Score:1)
by tabdelgawad on Thursday August 15, @02:06AM (#4074991)
(User #590061 Info)
then you're also competent enough to download and install a filtering proxy. I've been using Proxomitron on Windows for about a year, and haven't had to deal with a pop-up even before I switched to Mozilla.

It's really a non-issue.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
IE Users (Score:4, Informative)
by Joe Jordan on Thursday August 15, @02:08AM (#4074998)
(User #453607 Info | http://www.IgniteSoft.com)
A few good popup killers for IE (for those unfortunate enough to browse without Mozilla);

hdsoft PopNot [hdsoft.com] - Shareware, personal favorite
Panicware Pop-up Stopper [panicware.com] - free
EMS Project [emsproject.com] - free
Meaya Popup Filter [meaya.com] - shareware
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:IE Users by GPPL (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @02:47AM
  • Re:IE Users by Nameles (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @09:28AM
Get Proxomitron (Score:4, Informative)
by orthogonal on Thursday August 15, @02:12AM (#4075006)
(User #588627 Info)
Get Proxomitron. [proxomitron.org]

It uses regular expressions to allow you to convert anything in HTML (including the HTML headers) to anything you want.

It'll block pop-ups, pop-unders, javascript, cookies, java, or whatever you can write a regex for.

If you're worried that not viewing site X's pop-ups is theft of service, you can not forego using Proxomitron on those sites, either entirely, or on a regex-by-regex basis.

You can bypass filtering just by adding string (like "bypass..") in front of the URL, or automate this with a Bookmark/Favorite set to a simple javascript.

And it makes browsing SO much more enjoyable. It's the difference between night and day, not having annoying, flashing, in-your-face ads.

And it's fast (even with DSL connection speeds) and it's free (as in beer, but hey, they author also licenses it to adsubtract).

Get Proxomitron and take back the web.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
One of the problems of dual-licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
by Niten (gael@mail.portland.co.uk) on Thursday August 15, @02:19AM (#4075036)
(User #201835 Info | http://gael.port5.com/)

This is one of the reasons that I am not extremely happy with the dual-licensed nature of programs such as Mozilla and OpenOffice. Sure, such power in open-source packages can truly be a godsend to all of us, but the fact is that such a licensing scheme protects contributors barely more than a BSD-style license would. If either of these projects (most notably OpenOffice) becomes so popular that its owner could make a good profit by being able to close the code and sell it for a high price, by turning it into, in efffect, just another Microsoft Office, then they are free to at any time fork the code from the open-source project and continue in-house development, only releasing closed versions and extracting a fee from users. In this case the open-source version of the program would have to choose between playing eternal catch-up with the commercial version or evolving into something entirely different and entirely incompatible.

I also firmly believe that this model discourages contributors, mostly for the lack of protection mentioned above. I would certainly be happy to contribute my work to a GPL project; if a company wants to close some of the code that I have written, however, or link it with closed code, then I would require a fee from that company. It is as simple as that.

This brings me to my point: No, we wouldn't have either of theses projects without either Sun or AOL, but such a licensing mechanism allows companies such as these to close and commercially use contributed code that many potential contributors would prefer be GPLed for their own gain, rather than the benefit of their users - such is this action by AOL which is the subject of our discussion.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
So? Stick to mozilla. (Score:1)
by Inominate on Thursday August 15, @02:20AM (#4075042)
(User #412637 Info)
Want popup blocking? Use mozilla, dont use netscape. Simple enough isn't it?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Open Source == features (Score:3, Insightful)
by mark_space2001 on Thursday August 15, @02:20AM (#4075043)
(User #570644 Info)
I'm not a die hard open source fanatic by any means. I use Windows 2000 most of the time, and I only occasionally boot to my Linux partition to play.

A few months ago however, I tried out Opera. After using it a bit I discovered the "Disable Pop Ups" option and there was no way I'd go back to IE then. Even now when I have to switch for some compatibility issue (not often, only the really small web sites seem to have IE dependant features), I'm amazed at how annoying all the pop ups immediately become.

This is one of the best things that Open Source can do to convert users. Provide features that consumers (like me) truly want and the big boys won't give them.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Not so strange after all. (Score:1)
by miffo.swe (hedblom@djup o . c om) on Thursday August 15, @02:21AM (#4075049)
(User #547642 Info | Last Journal: Friday August 16, @09:10AM)
They want to make their browser a business platform. To remove all ads would be counter productive to what they weant to do with it. I think its sad and i do hope they will put in enough compensation in other areas to make the ads worth the pain.

Mozilla is pretty much perfect compared to IE so Netscape has a strong platform to build on. The sad thing is that it really rocks and is fast on Windows 95 without a browser and is slower and not_so-fast on any machine running IE 5 and up.

Heres hoping for a way to remove IE completely. Then again i dont use Windows but i want the windows users to be happy too.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Vote: what will be the last NS version number? (Score:2)
by jukal on Thursday August 15, @02:23AM (#4075056)
(User #523582 Info | http://www.openchallenge.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday August 18, @11:47AM)
My personal vote: Netscape 7.6. Mozilla will live long and prosper but I believe Netscape will not. There may be some(many) tuned (business, embedded, etc.) versions of Mozilla available under different names in future, but Netscape - at the moment does not seem to have much extra to offer. Or if it does, could someone say it out loud? What do you vote? :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Nice Addition to Blocking Popups... (Score:3, Informative)
by pnatural on Thursday August 15, @02:26AM (#4075064)
(User #59329 Info)
Just another example of the coolness that is Mozilla: Bannerblind [mozdev.org].
It removes graphics / objects from web pages that match pre-determined sizes. Very cool!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
A dialogue I had with Anti-Adblocker (Score:5, Interesting)
by fr2asbury on Thursday August 15, @02:26AM (#4075065)
(User #462941 Info)
Thought you might be interested. Note the very professional attitude the antiadblocker fellow keeps during his part of the discussion. Also note that I never admitted to blocking ads but his tone certainly acts as if I had. I was going to continue the argument but I tired of it. Maybe a couple hundred slashdotters would like to pick up where I left off? ;-) In order to keep it as short as possible I'll just copy and paste the email with the embedded replies etc. I'm sure you can figure it out:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner"
To: webmaster@AntiAdBlocker.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Ad blockers

> Hmmm. I wonder what makes you think that anyone who blocks ads would be
> even the slightest bit interested in buying something from a banner ad
> that they saw on a website.
> I guess it's a good thing your customers can't think this in depth.

From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:52:06 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

A scumbag like yourself probably doesn't understand this, but billions of
dollars of products are purchased on the internet. MANY people click and
buy products, just not scumbag leeches like yourself that think you're owed
something. Also, most websites are paid when you view the ads, not if you
click or buy something. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would
understand how all the websites you visit are funded. AntiAdBlocker allows
the internet to keep running even with scumbags like yourself surfing the
web and stealing from webmasters. Shame on you.

AntiAdBlocker

From: "AntiAdBlocker" webmaster@antiadblocker.com
To: "Jonathan Gardner"
Subject: Re: Ad blockers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:40:56 -0400
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

> I can tell from your tone that you are a very professional outfit,
> nevertheless you did not answer my question so I will take issue with your
> assumptions. I have no doubt that many things are bought over the
> internet. I do it myself.
> But just as with the real world, when I want something I go and get it. I
> NEVER purchase anything from an unsolicited phonecall.
> I NEVER purchase something from an unsolicited email.
> I NEVER purchase anything just because I see it on an ugly billboard that
> mars the beauty of the natural land nor do I buy things I see on an
> obtrusive banner ad.

Hogwash. Internet ads are like TV commercials. You watch the TV channel
for free and as a condition, they have commercials. It's not unsolicited
like a telemarketer. It's an agreement that you watch TV or the internet at
a reduced cost if you view the ads. So first of all, internet advertising
is not in the same league as junk mail, spam or telemarketers.
Secondly, don't lie to yourself. Do you purchase ANYTHING that you've seen
on a TV ad? I'm sure you have so don't even lie. That's the same kind of
ad as the internet. The ads offset the cost of the program and delivery.

Third, you must be foolish if you think that no one clicks on an ad and buys
something. If they didn't, advertisers wouldn't buy anymore ads, would they
Mr. smart ass? Also, a lot of internet advertising is branding, just like
TV commercials. Most TV commercials don't directly sell something. They
just brand a product. Like beer or car commercials. There's tons of beer
and car commercials but not once have I even seen a beer or car commercial
that gives a number to call to order beer or a car. That's because their
branding the product. Many internet ads are the same, just branding.
Marketing 101, but obviously, you don't have a clue and even worse you think
you know what you're talking about.

> These banner ads cost internet users time and bandwidth just to down

Read the rest of this comment...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
For the sad souls that use IE (Score:1)
by WhaDaYaKnow on Thursday August 15, @02:32AM (#4075075)
(User #563683 Info)
www.meaya.com [meaya.com]

(I'm not afiliated or anything, it just seems to work 99% of the time)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
popups (Score:4, Interesting)
by loconet on Thursday August 15, @02:44AM (#4075115)
(User #415875 Info | http://www.systemx64.com/carlos/)
One way to beat mozilla's pop-up blockin feature is by listening to mouse movements instead of onLoad javascript in the body tag. I have seen it in a couple of sites (ie: http://www.cracks.am/ ). Let's hope this and any other ways to beat the built in popup blocking feature are being taken care of for the next release of mozilla.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:popups by minh7749 (Score:3) Thursday August 15, @04:53AM
  • Re:popups by willith (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @09:42AM
  • Re:popups by Reziac (Score:2) Thursday August 15, @01:29PM
  • Re:popups by Jim Haskell (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:41AM
  • Re:popups by jonasj (Score:1) Friday August 16, @02:19PM
All fish are trout! Save the "blink" tag! (Score:3, Insightful)
by tlambert on Thursday August 15, @02:53AM (#4075130)
(User #566799 Info)
"All popups are ads. A banner is an ad. Therefore blocking popups blocks all advertisements, and is stealing content".

Uh... What?!?

Blocking popups doesn't block advertisements, it only blocks *annoying* advertisements that a human has to acknowledge by closing the window.

There are currently FCC regulaton regarding the moral equivalent popup ads on radio and television: advertisements with twice the audio level as the program. This used to be a comon practice, until it pissed people off to the point that the FCC was petitioned. It shouldn't suprise anyone that people find popup ads similarly annoying, or, similarly, want to block them.

If you want to create advertisements that won't get blocked, maybe you should look at making the advertisements have the same profile as normal content, and make them plin text, instead of animated GIFs.

Next the advertisers will all be telling me that turning off the "blink" tag on a text-only advertisement is the same thing as stealing content... "just like those thieving visually impaired communists who use text-only browsers! You're only blind so you can avoid the banner ads and steal content from us!".

-- Terry
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Value in Online Advertising? (Score:4, Insightful)
by _Sprocket_ on Thursday August 15, @02:54AM (#4075136)
(User #42527 Info)
From the article:

As the online advertising market deflated in recent years, Web operators sold more imposing ad formats, including pop-ups, to convince hesitant marketers that the Web could prove effective.

It seems to me that the online advertising industry, such as it is, has found themselves at the bottom of a hole that they dug for themselves. And I suspect Doubleclick was the one with the biggest shovel.

Conventional advertising campaigns don't expect immediate results. Neither the Coca-cola company nor Honest Al's Used Cars hangs by the phone after their ad shows up on the radio or TV waiting for the phone to ring... and prompty considers it a failure if there has been no rings within X minutes of their spot. Yet online advertising is focused not on impressions, but the click-through.

When the mystical click-through fails to happen, the online advertising campaign is deemed a failure. In a desperate attempt to win back some marketing revenue, advertising agents promise more and more outlandish gimmicks. Tracking. Animated multi-media banners. Floating advertisements. Pop-ups, pop-unders, etc.

Meanwhile, in the real world, advertisers continue to advertise. Why? Advertising is a long-term strategy. There is rarely an immediate payoff. But there IS a payoff in eventual sales. Sometimes associating a particular campaign with increased sales is a bit of a black art (and even campaigns that are well-known aren't always a business success - witness the TacoBell chihuahua). This is all well known within the advertising world and a part of a well-established industry.

If online advertising had been smart they would have managed to adopt the same standards to their particular niche. However, like much of the dot-boom, short-sighted greed and unrealistic expectations were par for the course. And now they are paying their due.

Or rather, the end user is. Up until they get annoyed enough to patronize the thriving interest in various add-blockers and filters.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Portals and Click-throughs (Score:1)
by ultor on Thursday August 15, @02:57AM (#4075139)
(User #216766 Info | http://ultor.n3.net)
Unfortunately, as work-arounds for pop-ups appear, sites begin implementing far more aggressive solutions to force the user to see the ads, like timed portal pages with a big ad at dead center (ie. Gamespot--Ouch). I think the reason I don't like the pop-ups is the fact that they actually interact with your window system. If I open one browser window to use, I intend only for that one to be open. For that reason I disabled pop-ups in Mozilla. I was going to praise Slashdot for remaining pop-up free, but then saw the big "Visual Studio Trial-Click Here!" ad appear under the article here, and um, well, at least thanks for not using pop-ups.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I know we all like the sites.... (Score:1)
by LogicalChaos on Thursday August 15, @02:59AM (#4075148)
(User #601256 Info)
...but if you stopped going to all the pr0n it would cut down on pop-ups by 90%...

course...that would cut down sanity by 90% too.

Yeah -- just install Mozilla

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why not just use AdSubtract? (Score:2)
by SlashChick (erica@@@simpli...biz) on Thursday August 15, @03:24AM (#4075206)
(User #544252 Info | http://slashdot.org/~SlashChick/journal/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 06, @02:10AM)
I use a program called AdSubtract. It acts as a local proxy to kill not only pop-ups, but banner ads, Flashvertisements, annoying background images, and other things on a per-site basis. It sits in your system tray (Windows) and is easy configurable via a right-click menu.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that Slashdot posts so many articles about Mozilla and its pop-up blocking, but completely ignores the other, better solutions out there. I suppose it's because AdSubtract blocks the regular ads on Slashdot as well.

Best of all, AdSubtract works with every browser, from IE to Mozilla to AOL (bleh.) It's highly worth it on a dial-up connection, since your browser won't even download the advertisements. (Those of you who understand the pain of waiting for the advertisement to load just so you can see the rest of the page should definitely check this program out.) You wouldn't even believe how much cleaner the web feels when you're not subjected to constant annoyances.

Check out my example of what AdSubtract does [raqfaq.net], or visit their home page [adsubtract.com] for more. And no, I don't work there or even know the people who built it personally -- I just know a good product when I see one.

BTW, AdSubtract does cost money, but download the free trial and it will give you a little message in a couple of days telling you to click OK to buy it at a reduced price. I've found the money to be well-spent in making my web browsing less annoying. :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Advantage of Open Source (Score:1)
by droyad on Thursday August 15, @03:38AM (#4075235)
(User #412569 Info)
1) DL the source code to Netscape 7.0
2) look for the line that puts the pop-up blocking option into the GUI
3) Uncomment the line found in 2.
4) Recompile.

They didn't take out the functionallity, they uncommented it. That's what any programmer would do.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Opera (Score:2)
by vanyel on Thursday August 15, @03:38AM (#4075238)
(User #28049 Info)
All the more reason to use Opera...if they'd just fix the javascript bugs, since so many sites require it...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just use the Opera browser.... (Score:1)
by TomMajor on Thursday August 15, @03:39AM (#4075240)
(User #580331 Info)
Just surf to www.opera.com and download it there. It's the best browser I ever used. 1. You can choose to open all windows inside Opera, so you won't have hundreds of instanses filling up you're "start line" (If you're using windows) 2. If you press the F12 button, you'll get up a nice little menu where you can choose to refuce or accept pop-ups. And other things like gif-animations, embedded video and other potentialy anoing stuff... Give it a try... you won't regret it! trust me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Microsoft Sponsoring Article (Score:1)
by MR_Flaimbait on Thursday August 15, @03:44AM (#4075246)
(User #601265 Info)
You can see that Microsoft are sponsoring this article from the large Banner Ad that loaded when I viewed the page. Here's what I saw. [4.35.135.45]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
a question? (Score:1)
by freeefalln on Thursday August 15, @03:52AM (#4075266)
(User #541648 Info)
Many sites use popups for revenue, valid sites that simply need the money or they're gone. My question is, if that popup is not loaded by disabling popups in mozilla, is that still considered an 'ad view' by the powers that be? Is it still logged since it tries to view?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
X10 (Score:2)
by sheepab on Thursday August 15, @04:12AM (#4075309)
(User #461960 Info | http://www.thrillhouse.com/)
So when did netscape buy out the company that makes those X10's?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:X10 by CrazyDuke (Score:1) Thursday August 15, @08:00AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
other anti-ad stuff (Score:1)
by edxwelch on Thursday August 15, @04:14AM (#4075314)
(User #600979 Info)
Mozilla also allows you to block images from selected servers and there also is a bug to extend this feature to allow you to block any medium from any server (i.e. flash animations). It will be interesting if this feature gets developed, considering the pro-advertising stance that AOL seems to be adopting.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Popups not all that bad (Score:2)
by pclinger on Thursday August 15, @04:30AM (#4075353)
(User #114364 Info | http://www.slashdot.org/)
I may get flamed out of existence for this, but so be it.

Everyone here sounds like popups are the work of the devil and should be banned from the Internet. Someone needs to put things into perspective here.

I operate a Web site where popunders and banner ads are the main source of revenue for the site. The free service I offer people who go to my site is run on over 16 different servers. What pays for these servers to be online? The money from advertising. Let's face it - you don't get jack for banner ads these days. Personally i get 8 cents CPM on banners. That's nothing. Where do you look to? Alternative types of ads that do pay.

So how can I pay my bills that total nearly $3,000 a month for this "free" service (and make a profit in the end)? Popunders. This is what advertisers are willing to pay for these days. Am I a sinner that should be crusified for supporting this ad format?

The fact is, many of the sites you visit today on the Internet are ad supported. Many are just scraping by, and this is one of their main sources of revenue. Your using popup killer deprives these sites of revenue that they should be getting for you visiting their sites.

If someone puts some content out on the Internet for you to read, and puts a popunder on the page, you allowing the popunder to load is your payment for reading the information on the page. YES it is stealing from that Web site to not have their ad load. They are offering something for you, but you have to be willing to give a little something back - be that 1 second of your time to close a new window, or a few seconds where you actually consider the ad.

Nothing is free. You have to pay somehow, and on the Internet you pay with your eyes.

I see one of the other posts here claiming that popunders basically "hijacking" their browser. Some Web sites may try to lock you into popup hell where you close one window, more come up in an endless loop. Of course that is wrong, I'm not supporting that. What I do support is all the Webmasters out there who are trying to get by where their source of revenue is legitamit popup/under advertising. Just because a new window is created, that's not hijacking, come on, get real.

Like I said, just my opinion on the matter, probably be flamed like never before. Someone has to be the 'bad' guy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
If I lose patience... I go elsewhere (Score:1)
by Rev. Rudolf on Thursday August 15, @04:33AM (#4075359)
(User #146245 Info | http://rudolf.org.uk/)
I use a home-brewed HTML- and image-rewriting proxy to zap most ads, and Mozilla takes care of the pop-ups. Sometimes the proxy gets it wrong and doesn't zap an ad, or zaps something that isn't an ad.

If I experience a problem with some site - either because my anti-ad / privacy measures have rendered the site unusable, or maybe because there's some ad I'm seeing that I *really* want to get rid of - then sometimes I'll spend a few minutes tweaking cookies / javascript / the proxy to fix the problem.

However, the bottom line is: if the site doesn't work for me, no big deal, I'll go elsewhere. So long, suckers. If you wanted my traffic, you shouldn't have used ads/cookies/javascript in that way.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
To be expected (Score:2)
by serutan (doug@geekazon.com) on Thursday August 15, @04:38AM (#4075371)
(User #259622 Info | http://www.geekazon.com/)
Yeah, expecting popup blocking in Netscape now is like expecting a Coke machine not to have a coin slot.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Dump the crap where it belongs! (Score:1)
by MrLinuxHead (mrlinuxhead@yahoo.com) on Thursday August 15, @04:41AM (#4075374)
(User #528693 Info | http://www.mrlinuxhead.com/)

I (and many others) will block "unrequested windows" as a SOP, and go one step beyond: add a line to dump anyone's IP address and hostname into the hosts file like this:

127.0.0.1 localhost

127.0.0.1 media1.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media2.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media3.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media4.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media5.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media6.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 media7.fastclick.net

127.0.0.1 www.burstnet.com

Get the idea? Another excellent way is going through the cookies and pulling anyone with "ad" or "fast" in their name.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How can you be surprised? (Score:2)
by forgoil on Thursday August 15, @05:16AM (#4075435)
(User #104808 Info | http://forgoil.fukt.bth.se/)
The net is filled with ads, what did you expect from AOL? Of course netscape won't feature something that works against what their owners see as their business. Netscape didn't start mozilla for the sake of freedom or removal of annoyance, they did it because they want to own the only browser on the market, and be able to push whatever they want into it. They are not battling IE for your sake after all.

I think there is a better chance that Konqi will get and keep features such as this, and it is not a big piece of bloat either.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Saving money? (Score:1)
by stevey (skx@tardis.ed.ac.uk) on Thursday August 15, @05:47AM (#4075480)
(User #64018 Info | http://www.steve.org.uk/)

But look at it this way .. the sites are using popups to generate revenue, which they use to pay their bandwidth bills, right?

So by not loading the popups we're saving them money - not stealing.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 22 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]