The Return Of The Pop-Up Ad

SYFer writes "Shortly after upgrading my Macs to OS X 10.3.8, I noticed that I was getting pop-up ads on Safari. It had been so long since I'd seen a pop-up, I completely forgotten how annoying they can be. I went over to Apple's Support site to see if there was a relationship, but learned that the timing is just a coincidence (even though there's a lot of the usual FUD and flailing of arms in the discussion forums). In fact, it turns out that the pop-up advertisers (what's the proper denigrating term here?) have finally defeated the pop-up blocking functionality found in many browsers. MacFixIt is running a front page article on the topic and says 'Contrary to initial reports, this problem isn't limited to Safari; subsequent reports have noted pop-under ads victimizing a number of browsers that provide pop-up-blocking features, including the latest versions of Safari, FireFox, Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Camino.'"

Well then...

[Realistic_Dragon (655151)]

...it's time for the return of my shotgun to active duty.

I tolerate text ads because something has to pay for the web, but popups and other abusive ads (like the huge flash ads in the slashdot TEXT ONLY service) just get blocked. The fuckwits deserve not to get any ad revenue for pulling stupid tricks like that.

Re:Well then...

[MutantHamster (816782)]

What good is a shotgun going to do? What are you going to do? Keep a log of all of the sites that use pop-ups, looks up who's personally responsible and then track them down by yourself in a vigilante style vendetta killing spree?

I'm coming too. I'll go get my shotgun.

Re:Well then...

[Zorilla (791636)]

What good is a shotgun going to do?

He uses a Compy.

Re:This isn't that serious

[Da Web Guru (215458)]

Just turn off javascript in the browser you use. If a site requires javascript then don't go there.

That is not a viable option. 95% of the sites I (and almost every other web user) visit use javascript in some way, shape, or form. I don't want to take the mindset of "Flash is evil, images are a waste of bandwidth, java is pathetic (even though it is, but that's beside the point). The Internet is full of crap so I should just use Lynx." I like to see things other than plain text and images. I can deal with a couple of pop-up ads here and there until the next version of Firefox comes out.

How to not get pop-ups and keep your javascript on

[Penguin Follower (576525)]

Just turn off javascript in the browser you use. If a site requires javascript then don't go there.

That is not a viable option. 95% of the sites I (and almost every other web user) visit use javascript in some way, shape, or form. I don't want to take the mindset of "Flash is evil, images are a waste of bandwidth, java is pathetic (even though it is, but that's beside the point). The Internet is full of crap so I should just use Lynx." I like to see things other than plain text and images. I can deal with a couple of pop-up ads here and there until the next version of Firefox comes out.

Well, here is what I do in Firefox. I haven't received any pop-ups (yet). In the options dialog, under "Web Features" you'll find that on the far right across from the "Enable Javascript" checkbox is a button that says, "Advanced."

"Allow scripts to: " (remove check marks next to the following)

• "Move or resize existing windows"
• "Raise or lower windows"
• "Disable or replace context menus"

I also uncheck "Hide the status bar" but that's a personal preference.

After unchecking those along with having the pop-up blocker enabled I no longer get any pop-ups. And I really don't see unchecking those having any profound viewability problems on the web. If a site needs to resize your window, it's usually because they want to open a pop-up along side it. :P Same goes for raising/lowering too.

Dude, you are so out of touch:-)

[khrtt (701691)]

Haven't you heard of gmail?

Are you really going to complain loudly to the webmaster of every little javascript-based site you want to use and wait for them to redo the site?

Do you realize that many sites are actually faster with javascript on, because there is a non-trivial application running on the client site, and it needs to download no (or very little) data for many of the requests, as opposed to loading the whole damn page every time you want to change the width of a column in a table?

Re:This isn't that serious

[forkazoo (138186)]

I am right there with you. I'm sorry, but there just aren't any websites that are so important to me that I feel the need to beg for bullshit by turning on a bunch of pointless features.

The very concept of a pop-up blocker is stunning to anybody who has been using the web since before Javascript became common. (To say nothing of the folks who have been using the Internet since before it had websites on it!) I can think of very few features that were so bad that users begged for ways to prevent the feature from being used... And said feature wasn't removed from the product!

Can you imagine if car makers started including bombs in all their cars, and you had to get or make a special explosion-blocker? You'd think that it would occur to the manufacturer to just not install the bomb, rather than working on the ultimate explosion blocker!

I'm using more exclamations points than is my habit, but only because I find the situation so excrutiatingly baffling. If, in IE6, MS had simply not bothered to include the code to open new windows automatically, the world would be a better place, and few people would have felt the need to switch to better browsers. Any sane web designer has come to realise that their user's hate popups. Further, any sane web designer has to deal with the fact that their 'legitimate' popups are likely to be blocked. Thus, any sane web developer should just stop using popups as part of the actual site, so all popups can be assumed ads, and we can just abandon the feature entirely.

To quote Mr. Jeff Foxworthy's guide to UI design... When you have features that make front page news when they get used, because your users hate those features so vehemently, you might be a bloat-peddler.

correct terminology

[isecore (132059)]

it turns out that the pop-up advertisers (what's the proper denigrating term here?)

Poppers? Plippers? Flippers? Flappers? Wippers? Snappers?

Sorry, kinda high on Red Bull right now.

Oh man...

[FireballX301 (766274)]

...am I lucky.

Lynx is, and continues to be, the ultimate browser for ad-less internet browsing.

Take that, 21st century!

I don't see a problem here...

[IO ERROR (128968)]

Hm, Firefox's built-in pop-up blocking hasn't yet failed to block a pop-up ad, and the Adblock extension has gotten all the rest, once the offending sites were added to its blacklist. I rarely see an ad anymore, of any type, unless I'm looking for it.

In any event, it's going to be something of an arms race between advertisers and pop-up blockers. Ideally, these jerkwad marketers should realize that people using pop-up blockers do not want to see their ads and display them to someone else who does want to see them. If they can find anyone like that.

Re:I don't see a problem here...

[QuantumG (50515)]

No, you just don't go to the right sites to see this shit. Try going to http://www.spacedaily.com/ [spacedaily.com] and observe absolute insane shit that FireFox still allows random web sites to do.

Re:I don't see a problem here...

[tiltowait (306189)]

> people using pop-up blockers do not want to see their ads

Advertisers don't give a damn about that.

They know that some of those people -- admittedly a minute percentage, but in a game of millions a 0.1% click-and-buy rate can make you rich -- do not maintain the minimal essential commitment of an online citizen and refuse to ever buy something as a result of invasive, unsolicited advertising.

This is also the reason the telemarketing associations oppose the "Do Not Call" lists. They know that a portion of the people on these lists can still be persuaded to buy things from them.

How it mostly works

[BWS (104239)]

Fundamentally, most browsers allows popup if it is cuased by a click. (eg, you click on a link and a popup window occurs).. So what they have done is figured around that. They wrap all links around javascript calls, it changes your current page to the new destination and popups up a new window (that's an ad). Here's some code I did that popups up 5 windows in Firefox..

<html>
<head>
<title>Test Page</title>
<script type="text/javascript">
function goLink(t1, t2){
window.open(t1, "pop1", "name=a1,width=400,height=400,left=10,top=10");
window.open(t1, "pop2", "name=a2,width=400,height=400,left=40,top=40");
window.open(t1, "pop3", "name=a3,width=400,height=400,left=70,top=70");
window.open(t1, "pop4", "name=a4,width=400,height=400,left=100,top=100");
window.open(t1, "pop5", "name=a5,width=400,height=400,left=130,top=130");
window.location = t2;
}
</script>
</head>
<body>

<A HREF="javascript:goLink('http://www.google.com','h ttp://www.fark.com')">Go TO Fark.com</A>
</body>
</html>

Re:How it mostly works

[BWS (104239)]

mistake in the code

the HREF line should read

<A HREF="javascript:goLink('http://www.google.com','h ttp://www.fark.com')">Go TO Fark.com</A>

basically, produces popups whenver you click on a link

Re:How it mostly works

[dgatwood (11270)]

That's not quite how they do it, though you're close. The websites that end up generating these pop-ups don't have any javascript in the links. They're being blown in by banner ads using an onload or other similar routine and then walking the DOM and adding an onclick property to (or possibly adding javascript to the href property of) various random anchors throughout the page.

Generally speaking, if javascript adds an onclick to a link that didn't have one in the original page contents, this should not be allowed to occur. Further, if javascript attempts to open a window as a result of clicking on a link whose HREF is a javascript link, the original page content prior to javascript DOM manipulation should be checked, and if the original contents were not a javascript HREF, the pop-up should be blocked.

Fix those two problems, and these pop-up ads should become a fading memory... at least until they come up with the next gross mechanism to do it....

They just don't get it, do they?

[Stealth Potato (619366)]

We go through all this trouble to block pop-up ads, and they come up with some way to cram them through our browsers anyway. What's the point? Do they really think I'm going to buy anything from them, when it was me who installed an alternate browser/pop-blocker add-on so I'd never ever have to come into contact them in the first place?

It's sorta like this:

"SCREW YOU, POPUP-BLOCKING BASTARD!! Now buy our cheap cameras.

...Please?"

Hmm...

Adaptation

[Elpacoloco (69306)]

So....how long before firefox develops a popup blocker blocker blocker?

I think I just confused myself. Yikes.

Mushroom mushroom

[tepples (727027)]

So....how long before firefox develops a popup blocker blocker blocker?

Blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, pop-up, pop-up

Blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, blocker, ARGH! Spam! A spam!

(apologies to weebl [badgerx3.com])

Adblock and Firefox

[MightyPez (734706)]

Lately I've been hearing complaints by people using Firefox of some sites having pop-ups come up again. The biggest complaint coming from people that visit The Drudge Report [drudgereport.com]. I too have seen them.

However, ever since I started using the Adblock [mozdev.org] extension, as well as keeping an updated list of definitons [geocities.com], I haven't had these problems lately.

What's the matter with advertisers?!

[FunWithHeadlines (644929)]

How clueless must advertising executives be? Serious question, so if anyone reading this works in advertsing, would you please explain this to me:

How does defeating a measure designed to block your ads make good business sense? Does forcing your ads upon someone known to hate your approach produce good results? Does irritation equal a higher rate of return because people who hate your ads see them and have a change of heart? Do they say, "Hey, I had no idea those hateful ads were so interesting and useful to me. I think I'll buy their product."

Cuz my instinct is that when a person takes active efforts to banish you from their lives, forcing your way into their living rooms isn't a cost-effective approach. But hey, I don't work in advertising, as anyone who reads my About page on the headlines site knows. I like advertising in its place, but c'mon, if I kick you out of my house, stay there, please.

Re:What's the matter with advertisers?!

[miyako (632510)]

I don't work in advertising, but I would like to venture a guess.
People on average are stupid bumbling idiots that want life to be as easy as possible, even if it means sacrificing their ideals.
The end result of this is that most people see a popup for, say, brand X of a digital camera. Later, when they are trying to decide on a digital camera, they remember brand X, they don't remember where they remember it from, but because they've seen the popup so many times, they remember it, and are therefore more likely to buy Brand X of digital camera.
Compounding this is the fact that even if they remember seing a popup for brand X of digital camera, if they want a digital camera, they aren't going to be thinking, or care about "if I buy brand X of camera, that means I'm supporting popups".
Same with websites that have popups, most people hate them, but when it comes down to it, it's easier for them to put up with the popups than to deny themselves of free flash greeting cards to spam their friends with or whateve else they may happen to be browsing.

Re:What's the matter with advertisers?!

[AbbyNormal (216235)]

"How does defeating a measure designed to block your ads make good business sense?"

Uhm, How about SPAM? All it takes is one click to make it worth it to them.

Re:What's the matter with advertisers?!

[StarsAreAlsoFire (738726)]

Actually, thats a good point. Make it a policy to click on the ad. Every time. Do it.

The site has to pay ad revenue per-click, right? Not per purchase?

Seems like a losing game to me...

[DeadScreenSky (666442)]

The Internet ad industry is causing an arms-race they won't be able to win. If the increasingly popular pop-up (or pop-under really in this case) blockers start getting defeated, that is just going to force the average browser user to start using a custom Hosts file of some kind to block nearly all ads [google.com]. There isn't too much the ad industry can do about that, IMO, with the possible exception of making the ads come from the same server as the content. This will be okay for some sites, but I can't imagine too many people will want to give up that much control over their sites.

(But maybe that control is the ultimate plan of the ad industry - it would really make things easier on them...)

Macslash had this...

[paulthomas (685756)]

until users complained.

I sent them a brief email:

Hi, I was disappointed to find that you are running advertisements that intentionally circumvent the settings of the user. I will not be browsing to your site again until you remove the annoying onclick() popups. You should share with your advertisers that people who see these ads are even more pissed about them than regular popups. I don't mind advertising, but I like to be in control of my computer. Opening new windows is not something I want someone doing from a web site unless I request it. And if I specifically make efforts to prevent someone from doing this and they maneuver around it, it is even more frustrating. Entirely unscrupulous and I am sincerely disappointed. Regards, Paul

I received an email from them soon after that they had sent to their advertising partner, TribalFusion:

Hi. I want to express my anger at the recent changes with your popunder ad technology. It is infuriating to both my readers and to me that you would write ads that do not respect browser pop-up blocking preferences. Just because you're able to fool Safari and Mozilla-based browsers into displaying pop-under advertisements does not mean that you should. In fact, it's among the most unethical thing I've seen by internet ad companies. The reason I allowed pop-unders on the site to begin with was because there was an easy way for readers to "opt-out" of seeing them by using browsers that they could enable pop up blocking with. After four great years of working with TF, that you would go to such lengths to subvert my reader's wishes tarnishes Tribal Fusion's image in my mind is disturbing. I've heard from 20 long-time readers just this week telling me they will no longer visit MacSlash because of these ads. Why on earth would you go to such lengths to antagonize my readers? It's unacceptable. Dismayed, Ben Stanfield Executive Editor, MacSlash

Needless to say, I was very impressed, am browsing Macslash again, and have yet to see any more of these pop-ups.

-Paul

Suffering from popups AND popup blockers

[dpbsmith (263124)]

A not-terribly-computer-savvy friend of mine is having problems with his AOL email.

So I suggested he sign up for Yahoo mail, because all the people I know who use it find it perfectly satisfactory.

He can't get signed up for Yahoo mail. I tried coaching him step by step over the phone. I can't be 100% certain of what's happening, but as I followed through the same steps on my own browser, he ran into troubles at exactly the point when Yahoo popped up a confirmation screen on my browser.

I'm about 95% sure he has popup blocking enabled and that's what's preventing him from signing up with Yahoo.

Of course, he doesn't know what a popup blocker is, or how to control it.

So, these days there are probably users who are suffering both from the new popups and from incompatibilities caused by the use of popup blockers.

Solution

[brsmith4 (567390)]

A solution to this is to install the AdBlock [mozdev.org] extension for Mozilla/Firefox. Once you've done this, grab this list [process-of...nation.net] of search strings. Once you've done this, import the text file and you should be home free. Try to keep that file updated as it should be a good starting-off point, but will become outdated as time goes by.

Code example

[theolein (316044)]

I too noticed this, but contrary to most, realised that they must simply be doing what has been possible for a long time but which no one had really bothered with, with the exception of porn sites and other spyware "value adders", until now.

Basically, it just uses the age old technique of using the document.write method, but obfuscated, to write other, obfuscated tags which are not recognized by the blocker as being new script tags, which themselves call a new obfuscated pop.js code that actually, in yet another round of obfuscation, produces the actual pop-under code: In essence, if one can block any request for the server of the obfuscated pop.js, or pop.cgi or whatever code, one will be in peace for a while. This can be done via adding the following lines to the hosts file on Windows (C:Windows(or WinNT)\System32\drivers\etc\HOSTS) or on Linux or MacOSX (/etc/hosts) or simply via your firewall software, which I'm sure we all use, don't we?

127.0.0.1 www.fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 media.fastclick.net

I have the code from the above server, as used by scienceblog.com, but I won't post it, as it's copyrighted, because the last thing I want is some internet low life trying to sue me for their own low life purposes.

Re:Science Blog

[servoled (174239)]

Pop-up free for me, but adblock did block two javascript items which is probably why. With a combination of adblock [mozdev.org] and userContent.css [gozer.org] in firefox I'm still pop-up ad free.

You might want to try something similar. If things get really desparate, using an blocking HOSTS [mvps.org] file can help as well.

Re:Science Blog

[HangingChad (677530)]

I just tried that URL but don't see any pop ups. I'm also running Firefox 1.0 on Xandros.

In the arms race between pop ups and browser, I'll put my money on the Firefox team. There's no way to win the pop up battle against open source. Against MSFT, certainly. They develop at the speed of glacier.

I'm guessing the first couple pop ups the Firefox developers see they'll be writing a fix.

Re:Science Blog

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Wow. Kind of weird. Firefox says the add was blocked. After a little while though, it pops under. I've never seen this before, so I decided to investigate. Seems it pulls some javascript file from some other domain. Fastclick.net in this case. Is there a tool that blocks the site from bringing scripts in from other domains? Like blocking images from other domains? This would probably stop a lot of the problems.

Re:Science Blog

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Not to reply to myself, but, after further investigation, I have some more info. The script that it links to has a function called ffPop, which probably stands for firefox popup. This function does a document.write of an embed tag pointing to a swf file. http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/ffp.swf That file, when loaded, will make firefox have a popup window. Maybe this will lead to having these popups blocked in future versions of firefox

Re:Science Blog

[CastrTroy (595695)]

oh, one more thing. Fill in a url querystring parameter to that url, and you get a popup with that address. For example: http://cdn.fastclick.net/fastclick.net/ffp.swf?url =http://www.google.ca

Re:been seeing this a while

[Ayaress (662020)]

It's my understanding that Mozilla was designed with 20/20 hindsight, and got rid of all the ways that websites annoyed users through IE. It's just that the advertisers were a bit more resourceful than I would have thought, and managed to pull a new rabit out of their hat just for non-IE users. I've been seeing popups with Firefox for a couple months on certain sites, and now on a few others as well. Interestingly, if I use IE for those same sites, I get a other popups, but I don't get the ones that I was getting under Firefox.

Anyway, I'm not too concerned. I don't doubt that an update or plugin will be made soon to stop even these, if one's not already out and I just haven't noticed.

Re:been seeing this a while

[Curtman (556920)]

I don't doubt that an update or plugin will be made soon to stop even these, if one's not already out and I just haven't noticed.

Setting 'browser.block.target_new_window' to true in about:config seems to work, I haven't noticed any.

browser.block.target_new_window

[cbr2702 (750255)]

Wouldn't that also block user-initiated javascript popups? Many sites use these legitamately (though they are annoying).

Re:been seeing this a while

[by Anonymous Coward]

Setting 'browser.block.target_new_window' to true in about:config seems to work, I haven't noticed any.

That isn't the only way advertisers are getting around popup blockers. This only applies to FireFox, as it's all I use:
There's an element called dom.popup_allowed_events in about:config, which has stuff like 'submit click dblclick' etc.
One website that's nefarious for insufferable ads (zophar.net) recently added code to make clicking legitimate links trigger popup ads. My solution was to remove all allowed popup events by making dom.popup_allowed_events = ""
Yeah, it'll probably break a few poorly written image galleries; but if everyone starts doing this, maybe people will stop thinking its OK to pop open new windows to show images.
This method should still allow target="_blank" tags to work in hyperlinks, but has its own problems as well. For what it's worth, I also have not seen any popup ads since doing this.

Mod parent up

[Headius (5562)]

This is very useful. It's worth noting, also, that removing all "allowed" popup events doesn't completely kill your ability to use sites that need popups...it just causes Firefox to warn you that it has blocked something, allowing you to adjust settings for that site.

Seems to have fixed all those new popups for me.

Re:Mod parent up

[ahdeoz (714773)]

Why do we want to surrender functionality? Don't give up the web to those that abuse it. Kick them off it by boycotting. Google has almost singlehandedly re-launched the dotcom boom by getting the eyeballs of people who choose to reward good sites and ignore bad tactics such as pop-ups, excessive banners, animations, and blurring between content and advertizement. You have the power to determine content. Don't bow out by surrending both the content and the functionality.

Re:been seeing this a while

[ArcCoyote (634356)]

Zophar and other sites that pop in Firefox seem to be using javascript that traps the click and mouseup methods on all links. If they don't get you when you click, they get you when you let up on the button. Technically, these are user-initiated pops, so FF doesn't block them.

You don't have to kill all allowed events, just hash out click and mouseup.

dom.popup_allowed_events = "change #click dblclick #mouseup reset submit" works well and still alows legitmate popups when you click form buttons and other user-requested behavior.

As always, you can always allow a site you need popups on.

Re:been seeing this a while

[elfurbe (759480)]

It's worth noting, though, that target="_blank" is deprecated in XHTML strict [w3.org]. If you're trying to write strictly compliant web pages (that is, XHTML 1.0 Strict/1.1), there's no answer except javascript for firing off a new window.

That said, I like the idea of NO popups of ANY sort without authorization. As long as Firefox clues me in that it stopped a popup so I can approve the site, I'm in. Though, I'd like to see a "one time" authorization. As in, I'm on some website I don't intend to be at again, I need to see one popup to complete some task, and that's it. I don't want it on my whitelist, I just want to see the one popup. Sort of like a firewall. Do I want to allow this: once, always, not this time, never.

Re:been seeing this a while

[ZorinLynx (31751)]

What gets me is that advertisers must realize how incredibly irritating popups are, and how much people hate them, yet they continue to use them to advertise. Won't this build ill-will against the product/company being advertised?

If folks go through so much trouble to block the darn things, advertisers should realize that it's not a good way to advertise, and switch to a less annoying method.

Same idea applies with spammers and spam filters. Why do spammers try so hard to get through to people who hate spam enough to block it? They're definitely not going to be customers!

-Z

Re:been seeing this a while

[shufler (262955)]

Of course advertisers know this annoys most people. However, the situation is the same as spam -- someone is clicking on those ads and buying the products. The number of people doing this is enough to make it worthwhile for them to continue doing this.

Re:been seeing this a while

[by Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking this myself, but I realise that now with browser integration of popup blockers (even in IE), people aren't necessarily explicitly choosing to block popups anymore. I assume the advertisers figure that some of the people blocking popups are only doing so because it was on by default in their browser, and if they can get around that, they can sell to these people.

The corollary would be that if specific popup blocker applications that need to be actually installed by the user used different methods to block popups, the advertisers would theoretically not try to stop these. I'm wondering if these popups will still get around Pop-Up Stopper, actually - it uses a much more no-nonsense strategy for stopping popups (ie, you cannot open any browser windows at all beyond the first one unless you're holding Ctrl or Shift - I've simply gotten used to that instead)

Re:been seeing this a while

[Thoguth (203384)]

Popups killed Yahoo, at least for me. Before I got reliable popup-blocking from Mozilla, Yahoo slammed me with popups every time I visited. So I quit visiting. Even when I got good popup blocking, I'd found other services to fill those needs, and Yahoo isn't, nor will it ever again be, my default "portal" for everything. I hope what they made with those popups was worth the ill will from me and (I'm certain) others like me who just quit visiting.

You know those cool X10 video cameras? I'm sure you saw the popups for those too. I might have gotten one if they weren't frickin' synonymous in my mind with popup advertisers. (Just like I'm never going to refinance my mortgage with a spammer, no matter how good a deal I'm going to get.) They look like a neat little geek toy, but I'm going to have to wait for another company to make them before I'll get one.

I guess I'm a little bit of ... a jerk ... when it comes to stuff like that. If a salesman is being pushy or otherwise "slick" I'll say so and walk out of a store, no matter how good the deal might have been. If a supermarket has long lines, I'll drop my stuff and leave. And if a website wants to make money by obtrusive advertising, I'll find another website that doesn't.

I know there are trade-offs and deals must be made in order to have low prices or provide good content for free. But there is a point at which I really feel like a place sucks, and at that point, I am willing to go through the inconvenince of finding someone else to deal with, rather than give money to those who would abuse me. It may work for other people, but if you don't serve me well, you don't make money from me.

It's not like there aren't other businesses who will take my money (or in the case of websites, my eyeballs) and give me what I want.

I wish more people did this, then maybe megacorps would treat people like .... people?

Re:been seeing this a while

[Exluddite (851324)]

>>Interestingly, if I use IE for those same sites, I get a other popups, but I don't get the ones that I was getting under Firefox.

It wouldn't surprise me if the advertisers aren't trying to do more than just find ways to get the pop-ups to show. Depending on what products they are trying to sell, I'd think they'd try to circumvent a certain browsers blocker.

If you know that your demographic is more likely to use Firefox or a Mac, why waste time getting around IE's defenses?

Re:been seeing this a while

[bahamat (187909)]

I actually spent several hours researching this because I was getting them in Firefox on OS X, but not Safari or Firefox on Linux. When my roommate started getting them on Linux I was quite surprised.

In every case I eventually tracked it down to either Flash or Java objects loaded into a page that requested a window be opened. Also in every case it seemed to be a well known advertising site that the object originated from.

The reason I never got any in Safari but did in Firefox is because I use Safari as my main browser so I've got PithHelmet [culater.net] installed, which comes with a healthy list of things to block, whereas I use Firefox only for testing so I've got little to nothing listed in my AdBlock rules. At work where I use a Linux desktop I have a healthy list of AdBlock rules.

If you're concerned about your privacy, avoiding ads, or popups you need to have at minimum AdBlock, CookieCuller and X installed for Firefox. If you're using Safari, PithHelmet is absolutely the best.

Re:been seeing this a while

[Vulturejoe (570401)]

Even better, try flashblock. It's an extension for firefox that will block flash files from being loaded until you click on them, get it at flashblock.mozdev.org [mozdev.org]

Re:been seeing this a while

[ticktockticktock (772894)]

I found the following adblock filter on slashdot somewhere, but don't have the reference handy, so I just copied/pasted my copy. There should be no spaces in any of the lines, and all lines start with / and end with /. There are some false positives with these rules on some sites. But for most other sites, you just don't see ads on pages anymore. (I am not sure how well these rules would work against popup ads though.)

[Adblock]
/\/(ad|commercial|marketing|promo(tion) ?|shop|sponsor)s?\//
/((double|fast|ad)click|clic k(xchange|sor))/
/(page|side|text)_?ads?/
/rcm.* \.amazon/
/(adsdk|a1\.yimg|akamai|amznxslt|atdmt| atwola|bilbo\.counted|bizrate|bonnint|brides\.ru|e dge\.ru|hitbox|falkag|maxserving|promote\.pair|rea lmedia|santa\.imho|servedby|spinbox|tribalfusion|q ksrv|zedo)/
/\/ads?(\.[\w]*){2,3}\//
/(ima?ge?|a d)serv/
/(ad|banner|sponsor)s?_?(id|ima?ge?|[0-9] *x[0-9]*)/

Re:Drudge

[dspeyer (531333)]

The drudge-report page self-modifies to include the javascript at:
http://z1.adserver.com/w/cp.x;rid=52;tid=4;ev=1;dt =1;ac=26;c=209; [adserver.com]
That javascript changes each time you load it (I think there are only a handful and the server picks one pseudorandomly). This means that sometimes it will hit you with popups, and sometimes it won't.

The code is obfuscated and I haven't sorted through it. The easy way to block it is to redirect z1.adserver.com in you /etc/hosts or block it at your firewall.

You may need to click on a link in order to experience the popup, though the links themselves are legitemate http hrefs.