Advertisements on Web Pages
Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point. Of course, the usual ads were filling the right third of the screen (Amazon ads for DVDs, books, etc.). And the top part of the screen had an annoying Java-enabled ad with a blinking package and the message "Claim your FREE PRIZE!" and another one screaming "Find a loan for me!" Part of the rest of the screen was IMDB hyping itself, offering special accounts, etc. Still, I figured that having 40% of my screen area left for actual _content_ was part of the deal. But as soon as I clicked on the details I wanted, the boxes obscuring the content appeared _again_. Again, I closed the box, again up popped a new one, and so on. Perhaps we are in the End Times. Surely this advertising model cannot last long. Maybe this is how remailers will have to finance operations. (There are better models, of course.) --Tim May
At 09:50 PM 08/06/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. ... But as soon as I clicked on the details I wanted, the boxes obscuring the content appeared _again_. Again, I closed the box, again up popped a new one, and so on.
Perhaps we are in the End Times. Surely this advertising model cannot last long. Maybe this is how remailers will have to finance operations.
It'd be a fine way to finance Assassination Politics, except the people advertising that way are also the primary targets :-) Most of those annoying things use JavaScript, which you should normally keep turned off unless there's a page you *really* want to see badly enough that you're willing to risk allowing to run dangerous stupid code on your browser. Some of them may use Java instead. A slightly cuter technique is to pop up the new advertising window *behind* the windows with the real content. When you're done reading the real windows and close them, the ad's sitting there politely waiting for you, trying to sell you that X10 camera yet again.
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising.
Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point.
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it (I gotta put in a plug for the registered version of Opera here) turn off animated graphics. These three simple acts will kill over 90% of web advertising. If you're actually after *content*, you can usually turn off autoloading of images as well, and that will kill almost 100% of web advertising. Bear
Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying.
Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying.
Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners.
There are also a number of freeware ad filter programs, including one that I wrote (see www.lne.com/ericm). When I turn it off (it's not perfect and a few sites won't work with it on), I'm astounded by the number of ads that I don't normally see. Eric
On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 08:57 AM, Eric Murray wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying.
Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners.
There are also a number of freeware ad filter programs, including one that I wrote (see www.lne.com/ericm).
When I turn it off (it's not perfect and a few sites won't work with it on), I'm astounded by the number of ads that I don't normally see.
To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now there are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several times. I had just installed a new version of Explorer (5.1, a new build, for OS X) and hadn't turned off "animations" and "scripts." Now I have. Most of the ads have gone away, but still many are chasing the relevant text into smaller and smaller boxes. My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be able to see content that isn't advertising. (I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be able to see content that isn't advertising.
You mean you don't have a 21" monitor already? I was wondering at what resolution you had your screen set to, with "one third" and "one third", etc. You might find the whole web experience to be at bit better with at least 1024 resolution. I'm using 1152 on a 19" monitor, and the pop ups don't take up all that much screen space. Still pretty annoying tho, and I understand what you're saying about the problem --- it used to be just those horrid geocities and tripod or whatever sites that did it. I do periodically turn off java and scripts, but then I'll hit a site that I really want to see and won't work without them. At some point, junkbuster or equivalent will just become a must have.
(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?)
Sure, it still works for the most part. I use it to quick check web pages from remote shell accounts. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 12:10 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Tim May wrote:
My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be able to see content that isn't advertising.
You mean you don't have a 21" monitor already? I was wondering at what resolution you had your screen set to, with "one third" and "one third", etc. You might find the whole web experience to be at bit better with at least 1024 resolution. I'm using 1152 on a 19" monitor, and the pop ups don't take up all that much screen space.
I'm quite happy with my monitor. It's a 15.1-inch LCD, 1024 x 768. It tilts, raises effortless on its pedestal, swivels, and the text is of course super-crisp. I would never go back to a CRT! In my experience, it takes a 21-inch CRT to equal the subjective experience of today's 15-17-inch LCDs. (An LCD monitor is brighter and has a wider viewing angle than laptop LCDs have, due to placement and number of fluorescent light sources.) I expect to get the 17- or 18-inch LCD in my next major upgrade cycle. 1280 x 1024. (It is possible to go even higher, even on these sizes of LCDs. A friend of mine has one of the SGI LCDs. Around 16 inches, running something like 1600 x 1200. Too hard to read, even with good glasses. The gorgeous Apple Cinema Display runs at 1600 x 1024.) Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million instructions per second. We have obviously gone up by 100x or more in memory (I have 576 MB in the machine I'm using now, and 320 MB on my laptop) and in processing power (billions of instructions per second, even billions of floating point operations). But monitor size has remained at roughly the same level for years, though prices have dropped. --Tim May
At 12:34 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million instructions per second.
I heard about it as the 1-M machine, with same qualifications. It had to have virtual memory to count as a real machine; I think the 386 or later had one. Myself, I shared a monochrome 68K-based Sun3, and thought myself lucky. And only vision labs had cameras attached.
On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 05:41 PM, David Honig wrote:
At 12:34 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million instructions per second.
I heard about it as the 1-M machine, with same qualifications. It had to have virtual memory to count as a real machine; I think the 386 or later had one. Myself, I shared a monochrome 68K-based Sun3, and thought myself lucky. And only vision labs had cameras attached.
I had a Symbolics 3600 Lisp Machine on my desk--well, the monitor for it, at least. A few megs of RAM, a MIPS or so of processing power, and a 1024 x 768 (IIRC) monochrome display. And an "awesome" (by the standards of 1985) 512 x 512 x 24 bits "Color System." Did I have a camera attached? Yeah, in the lab next door. Which explains why I skipped getting another IBM PC or Compaq when I left and instead got a Mac Plus. A lot less powerful than a Symbolics, but a lot more like a Symbolics than an IBM PC or PC AT was. ( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or was.) --Tim May
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or was.)
Heh. I would cheerfully commit a felony or two to get my hands on a Symbolics Ivory chip fabbed using modern technology and running at a GHz or so. When I was a student, we had six Lisp Machines in the AI lab. Bear
At 07:48 AM 8/8/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or was.)
Heh. I would cheerfully commit a felony or two to get my hands on a Symbolics Ivory chip fabbed using modern technology and running at a GHz or so. When I was a student, we had six Lisp Machines in the AI lab.
Yeah, kids these days think a tagged architecture is done with spraypaint..
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:34:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million instructions per second. We have obviously gone up by 100x or more in
NeXT used that line with some of their early designs. The monitor on my NeXTcube (which I bought in summer 1989) was 1120x832. Not as good as my current laptop. -Declan
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?)
Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I find it particularly handy though as a route around some firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're not and use lynx from there. Bear
Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> wrote:
Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I find it particularly handy though as a route around some firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're not and use lynx from there.
Or, slightly more complicated and much more flexible, tunnel a port on the local machine to a public proxy (or one that you're running yourself) outside the firewall, then direct your browser to use that port as its proxy. Of course, the best way of getting around the firewall problem is to tunnel a PPP session over SSH and give youself an entirely new network interface that acts like it's outside the firewall. With *IX, this is a trivial application of PPPd. Surprisingly enugh, the AOL client is the easiest and cheapest way I've found to do this in Windows. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I
Have you tried using Links?
find it particularly handy though as a route around some firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're not and use lynx from there.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
At 9:22 AM -0700 8/7/01, Tim May wrote:
(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?)
For very limited values of "used", yes. Not often, and not by many, but I'd bet it will build under OS X. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Petro wrote:
(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?)
For very limited values of "used", yes.
Not often, and not by many, but I'd bet it will build under OS X.
More than you may think. I personally use it, and I know at least a dozen others that do as well. Lynx is perfect when you don't need the pretty pix (90% of the time). Opera is up and coming for those who want the pics... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now there are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several times.
Newspapers are usually over 60% advertising. But at least in newspapers, the ads don't wiggle. Bear
On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 10:39 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now there are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several times.
Newspapers are usually over 60% advertising. But at least in newspapers, the ads don't wiggle.
And newspaper pages are vastly bigger than a typical screen. The eye can move very quickly to the sections of interest. Magazine pages are more like normal screen sizes. I don't begrudge the ad makers their "right" to buy space at some site for their intrusive ads. I _do_ think it's getting to the point of absurdity. This will cause more and more people to look into Ad busters. What will be interesting is if the advertising industry seeks to block the distribution of those ad busters, perhaps based on some kind of DMCA claim. (Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.)
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
(Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.)
They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??* Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're trying to sell. Bear
On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 11:44 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
(Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.)
They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??*
Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're trying to sell.
Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec which allows this. So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, presumably. --Tim May
At 12:02 PM 8/8/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec which allows this.
Probably built into the *contract* that makers of *licensed* viewers have to sign. DVDs can do random access.
So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, presumably.
Good test case.
On 8 Aug 2001, at 12:02, Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 11:44 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??*
Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're trying to sell.
Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec which allows this.
I can verify that. My copy of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" has 2 trailers that play _before the main menu_. Fortunately, chapter skip goes right by them, but it's still annoying. I've got one or two others with intrusive trailers, but their titles escape me. As I understand it, DVDs are controlled by a (reputedly powerful) script language that allows disabling arbitrary features of the player. (the FBI warning usually won't skip)
So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, presumably.
I can always tell my player to go directly to a title/chapter. Unskippable trailers will probably just lead to my keeping a Sharpie near the player so I can make a note on the new discs as to where I want to start. Is that "circumvention"? Hmmm... The DMCA prohibits Sharpie markers? -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy@scytale.com
Tim May wrote:
Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec which allows this.
Well, I watch a lot of DVD's, probably at least 2, sometimes 4-5 a week. Not having a TV or VCR, I watch them on my computer, and, at least on there, I haven't noticed any problems with skipping the ads and trailers. You have let them start, then hit the menu icon and then play the movie. On some, the menu also gives you the choice of playing the trailers -- seems to be a lot of difference depending on company. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 11:06:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
(Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.)
This came up in the DeCSS trial. To the judge, circumvention was circumvention. -Declan
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?)
Oh yes. If you can't use it with Lynx, it's probably low on content. Though I've been meaning to change to one of the www modes on top of Emacs. I hear some of them handle Unicode better than Lynx. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
At 08:17 AM 8/7/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it
There are some sites which are unnavigable without javascript and less frequently Java. And some with no indication of this for regular HTML browsers. But it is best to turn it on only when needed. And send those webmasters a nasty letter.
At 8:17 AM -0700 8/7/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising.
Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point.
Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not
Even simpler, push that little window into the background. They usually spawn when the code that spawns them can't find them any more.
used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it (I gotta put in a plug for the registered version of Opera here) turn off animated graphics. These three simple acts will kill over 90% of web advertising. If you're actually after *content*, you can usually turn off autoloading of images as well, and that will kill almost 100% of web advertising.
I figure looking at advertising (and the occasional random click through) is the price I pay for using certain web sites. Silly me. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
participants (13)
-
Bill Stewart
-
David Honig
-
Declan McCullagh
-
Eric Murray
-
Eugene Leitl
-
Harmon Seaver
-
measl@mfn.org
-
Petro
-
Ray Dillinger
-
Riad S. Wahby
-
Roy M. Silvernail
-
Sampo Syreeni
-
Tim May