Unwanted Popups Boosting Web Traffic 118
Most of us have experienced popups used for advertising. Now, some adware companies and advertiser networks are using popups (mostly from programs that users did not want installed) to directly boost traffic numbers for their customer Web sites. Net rating and measurement companies try to detect and discount such inflated traffic numbers, with mixed success.
Unwanted what-now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unwanted what-now? NoScript and AdBlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Want ads? Then stop popping up and stop full motion video with sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See http://adblockplus.org/ [adblockplus.org] and http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_project#filterset.g [adblockplus.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed in IE7 (Score:2)
Internet Explorer 7 popup blocker works. If Flash and other add-ons bother you, you can click Tools -> Manage Add-ons -> Enable or Disable Add-ons.
Re: (Score:1)
Adblock Plus [adblockplus.org] will also block in-page ads.
RTFS (Score:4, Insightful)
mostly from programs that users did not want installed
Re:RTFS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. On my work system (the only windows box I use), with IE, I get lots of popups, with firefox, I get very very few. So it certainly has _something_ to do with my choice of browser. It's all additive, of course: use a browser that has some decent popup blocking, _and_ don't install stupid shit on your pc, _or_ don't run the OS the stupid shit is made for. It all helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The latest trends for doing this are...
This is by no means a complete list, just my "top three". Anyone else like to add to this?
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Yahooligans and their trojan-ridden "booting l33t w4rez".
Nimrods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
mostly from programs that users did not want installed
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Meme-based Fraud Detection (Score:1)
http://www.realmeme.com/click [realmeme.com]
I was modifying my original Meme Miner to improve its prediction success and it stumbled upon anomalies which point to click fraud.
Imagine my surprise!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In all fairness though, you could probably make some pretty sweet heuristics to block popups in a call-home software each time someone got a popup. Especially if it cl
Warning! (Score:3, Funny)
This is a GoodThing (Score:2)
While paying for refered clicks props up some very useful services (Google, probably + various artful collections of 18+ girls), most organisations that advertise this way are not really adding value. The spyware companies are not adding value either, but are just feasting on greed.
I say let them all just get on with it and rip eachothers throats out.
As seen on CN (Score:5, Interesting)
Entrepreneur.com's traffic dropped by 5 million when they stopped their popunder campaign. Pretty sad...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like anyone was reading their ads anyway. Traffic doesn't help anything, especially if you annoy me to deliver the object.
Re: (Score:1)
If a site is able to boast "5 million hits a day" or whatever, they sound important, even if it's more accurately "5 million hits a day, 4,999,985 hits generated by popup ads".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A math teacher I had before called unlabeled numbers like that "naked numbers."
Use an OS that has a lot less of these problems... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Use an OS that has a lot less of these problems (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To the Linux fanbois responsible: Why not point to a specific chunk of code, or whichever branch is responsible for whatever wonderful feature you are pointing out today? After all, isn't that what F/OSS is all about? I may not use Linux, but I do write code, and I'm always on the lookout for clever hacks and good security (it's a zen thing).
It's a Browser problem, not an OS problem (Score:2)
I'm using an older Mozilla version and haven'
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
var atags = document.getElementsByName("a");
for(current=atags.item(0); current; current=current.nextSibling)
current.onclick = open_nasty_popup();
function open_nasty_popup() {...}
</scrip>
the above code will bypass most (if not any) popup blocker. On every a tag (link) in the page, an onclick handler is added to the link. popup blocker block popups which are opened without user interaction. because a click is a user interaction, popup blocker won't normally stop such window
Re:Use an OS that has a lot less of these problems (Score:1)
or take what you paid for. I use Linux myself, but feel free to get a Mac and experience less of these spyware just the same. It is really pointless to use Windows, or rather to use Windows as a non Windows expert and then complain about such.
Or use the OS that works for your needs without making rash generalizations that make you sound like a pompous ass+. I use Windows on my desktops (I gave up on Ubuntu for my laptop, too many issues) and Linux on my four home servers. I use cygwin and/or remote sessions for the linux tools. And it's funny - I have never had a virus*, I have never had spyware, I have never been hacked. It's this amazing thing called "common sense"; it just so happens that Windows requires more of it than the other opt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So are you implying that having pop ups invading ones OS is having their needs met? If not, then I don't see how you disagree as the tone of your post seems to imply. I also made the limitation of being a _non_ Windows expert. If things work that well for you in Windows, then you sir are a Windows expert. Again, I don't see how you contradict my points.
My wife runs Windows; the only advise she got from me was never, ever run IE -- also no viruses, popups,etc. She is far from an expert. But to your question -- how can I answer a point that I don't consider a valid point? I believe that it /is/ possible to run Windows as a non-expert; but no amount of arguing I do will convince you of that. I further believe that blanket statements of any kind (whether it be over choice of OS or about your favorite color) tend to make the utterer look just a bit si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, lets be fair, you're assuming, as am I, that you've never been hacked.
Not entirely -- I never make assumptions like that. I do periodically monitor network traffic; and regularly monitor my windows systems specifically for anything untoward. To do that I check network usage, CPU usage -- including 'holes' in CPU usage where it reports as idle, but performance makes it obvious that something is running.
So while I suppose it's possible that I've been hacked (through a hardware firewall), I would classify the likelihood as 'extremely low'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to cause a security breech, they need motivation _and_ opportunity. And I didn't see him or anyone else say "perfectly secure OS". I can only conclude, therefore, that you're either ignorant, or a troll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But pray that not many users will follow your advice or you will get the attention of the spammers and the situation will be the same with your "perfectly secure OS". So enjoy your minority while you can.
This isn't an OS problem, sure its currently a Windows problem but it will happen to any OS where the user blindly installs software, and where that process is overly simple and in some cases automatic.
Of course saying that, I doubt very much that even if Linux had a user base as large as the one Microsoft currently enjoys that the problem would be of the same scale, primarily because as a Linux user, even as a totally novice user, you can get all of your software from direct from whoever provided the dist
Re: (Score:1)
Never understimate the bad guys. Hell , people even break strong encryption methods, do you think they won't find a way to install spyware/virii into Uni* clones? If they only have enough motivation they could brea
Re:Use an OS that has a lot less of these problems (Score:5, Insightful)
If Jane Sixpack wants those bouncy smileys for her email, and the "official distribution channel" doesn't provide them, she will download them from a random website and install them, and if installing them requires the root password, then the root password it will get.
The typical Windows user knows not to open random email attachments and not to execute software downloaded from random websites, but the "need" for smileys and other flashy-flashies trumps any security education.
The problem is not the OS, it's the user. And I'd rather those users keep away from Linux.
Re:Use an OS that has a lot less of these problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there's a large assumption by a bunch of people that Linux (or Mac OS X or FreeBSD or NetBSD) is 'perfectly secure', and yes, I agree with you that they are dead flat wrong.
However, there's a large assumption by a bunch of people that if Linux were more popular, we'd see a lot more spyware, trojans, and viruses (oh my!) for Linux.
While this is a true in a relative way, it doesn't take much to be 'a lot more' for Linux. Even with just half a dozen, you'd have 'a lot more'.
However, it's important to note that no matter the popularity of Linux, there is no way it would ever have the depth or prervasiveness of malware problems present on the Windows platform. If anyone who actually knows anything about the operating system architecture and security of both the Linux and Windows platforms in depth wants to debate this point with me seriously, I welcome them. Assuming that spammers would have just as much luck with Linux or ther UNIXes as with Windows is just sheer lunacy.
Re: (Score:1)
I don’t know everything about either operating system, but I’m running both of them. Everybody on the Windows side (including me) is running without Administrator access. Nobody can install software. No program can access the Internet without setting the firewall to allow that executable to have network access first. That can’t be done without Administrator access. Any program that made a change to the registry could only affect that particular user and whatever it would do would no
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about perfectly secure?
Someone who misunderstands computers, and the wondeful dance known as the "developer-hacker-shuffle". Break the box, fix the box, break the box, fix the box...
And the beat goes on... (yadda dadda dee, yadda dadda doo)
They had it coming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The person soliciting the illegal activity is charged depending on what the solicited illegal activity was. In Texas this could be:
i.e.: Paying someone to kill a person would be something like "Criminal Solicitation to commit Murder".
The punishment is usually one degree lower than the solicited activity.
Someone should measure the response rate... (Score:2)
MOD UP (Score:2)
Pop-up blocker? (Score:4, Interesting)
--Ram
"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." --Sun Tzu, in The Art of War.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Chronologically speaking:
- the pop-up window is created,
- that new window requests data from the target URL
- and finally displays the data.
If you're ignoring/blocking scripts, the code to create a new window is not executed meaning that we never get to step #2.Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about pop-ups in particular, but Adblock has (or at least had) a setting where you could choose either to download the ads and not display them, or not download them at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...least of all, an identity.
Why display these adds at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why display these adds at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just the simplest of things as an example... after fetching the HTML code, did the same session retrieve the graphics? Is it handling cookies? Is it running the javascript?
Now some small percent of real browsers might not do any of that (how many lynx hits a day do you get in your logs?) - but if you purchased traffic and 95% of your "hits" match that pattern, it
I have said it before! (Score:4, Insightful)
In this way, we would lose a great deal of fraud on the web simply because there will be lost incentive to have it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
Measure anything human activity with statistics and it can be fudged and defrauded.
In this case, I think the more accurate measure would not be "web hits" but rather a measure of average time visiting said site. A pop-up ad is visted perhaps 1.2 seconds, while a legitimate site much longer, statistically speaking. Average clicks once on a site is another possible measure. Refering site is another item that can be used to uncover fraud.
I t
Re: (Score:2)
One way this could work would be for the advertiser to proxy the session. It could determine a sale was made and arrange appropriate payment. You don't want to have to trust the seller, or the advertiser.
Re: (Score:2)
There's simply no 100% reliable method for a server to even tell that two "hits" in a row were from the same live person, let alone construct meaningful demographi
I'm surprised... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm surprised that it took this long for advertisers to figure out that popunders/popups increase traffic. Back around 2000 when I was working for dot-coms, the ad-revenue based groups lived and died by traffic ratings (unique page impressions, etc) like Jupiter Media Metrics. When popunders started to reach critical mass, x10.com was pushed from nowhere into the top 5 -- overnight. I'm sure it cost them a pretty penny, but the result was evident over 6 years ago.
Let's hope that advertisers take another 6 years to catch onto the next big thing.
One Way to Screw Spamers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
AJAX (Score:2)
Someone at Slashdot is reading my mind! (Score:5, Interesting)
How ironic that this story appeared today.
Just last night, I was considering submitting a Ask Slashdot question on how other users deal with otherwise trustworthy sites that serve obtrusive popup/under ads. For example Merriam Webster's dictionary pages http://www.m-w.com/ [m-w.com] which I was directed to following a link in a ./ post. But I figured....popups? So 2001. Why bother the friendly folks with such a ancient topic?
For those thinking I don't know how to manage my unwanted ad exposure, keep in mind I am running Firefox 2.0 with Pop-up blocking; typically a solid solution. The MW website, however, delivered 2 ads that broke past FF's utility. It left me with my old tactic: A good-old-fashioned "You just lost a customer" email. I have a text template to make the process quicker, so here's last nights email to the House of Definitions:
To Whom it may concern:
Please be advised that I will no longer be visiting your website nor advising it to my children or students. I visited your website today and was confronted with not one, but 2 popup ads on the definitions result page. One led me directly to http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ [vonage.com] and the other was a kmart ad served by tribalfusion. Bear in mind that I use the Mozilla Firefox browser with Popup blocking active, and your website contains malicious code that defeats the pop-up window feature.
The computer I use and the programs that I run belong to me, not to you. I have no issues with your Privacy Policy, and your cookie policy. I simply request that you communicate with your third-party providers to prevent them from displaying code on your website that hijacks your customer's browser in this manner. While you are not responsible for the advertising content in said ads, you are reponsible for the user experience when visiting your site. At the present, it is not an enjoyable experience for someone who does not wish to be deluged in advertising. In addition, by continuing to host code which overrides a core browser component makes your site a possible vector for virus/malware transmission, should either your server or the servers of one of your advertisers ever be compromised.
I realize that advertising income supports your website, and more importantly your bottom line. The days when your core business was selling hardback dictionaries are over, and business models change.
However, upon the visit to your page, I am confronted with 8 total ads; the two popup/popunder ads mentioned previously, one for Hostgator, 2 Google ads for a Scooby-Doo DVD, one large graphical ad for Qwest, and two tolerable text links to your affiliate partners. All I wanted was a definition...not a great deal on DSL service!
As before, I will no longer be visiting or recommending your website or your products. There are other sources for the information you provide. In order for me to return, simple changes in your advertising strategy are requested, including the removal of popup/popunder advertising.
Sincerely,
Terry Hall
We shall see what kind of response I get. The message has worked in the past with some smaller sites, including my local bank's website. Why they needed pop-ups for revenue, I'll never know.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
[How does it decide which ones are 'wanted'?]
Re: (Score:2)
No popups for me. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I've used m-w.com since I can recall, and I've *never* seen a popup, or under for that matter.
I think their PC has something else installed
Online advertising is out of control! (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:1)
Why bother? (Score:2)