End Run Around Pop-up Blockers 484
An anonymous reader writes "The pop-up arms race continues, cnet has this article on how advertisers are responding to pop-up blockers." Can't wait for a full page of javascripted user-initiated pop-ups.
FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a FireFox extension [texturizer.net] that blocks [mozdev.org] those annoying Flash popunder ads.
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Funny)
Him: "Wow, Colin! Look how good this popup blocker is! Nothing's getting through!"
Me: "That's great, Schmuck. Now we won't have professors bitching at us about them."
Him: "So does that mean you'll move back to Internet Explorer from Firefox since that was your main reason for switching?"
Me: "Hell no. Firefox is impervious. Popup problems? What popup problems?" *chuckles*
Him: "Well, sp2's popup blocker is impervious, too!" *gets a popup* "FUCK!"
Me: *draws on board: FIREFOX >> YOU*
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
if it offered preview mode: e.g. hover over the
button and it shows a preview of what would be there.
As it is, it is hard to tell navigation flash from
ads.
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Funny)
Pffft. With only ONE filter
Hey, slashdot doesn't seem to have any articles today. Must be a slow news day.
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Insightful)
tuning filtering.
2. Adblock does not block flash, though you can
disable javascript that would load flash.
3. If you want to disable flash based on its content
then Adblock is useless. Ideally, you'd have an AI
engine analyzing the flash code and deciding if it
has a valid reason to be displayed. For now, YOU have
to be the AI engine.
4. If you were to decide what flash to allow it
would be nice to have an easy way to diable flash
after it is activated or to have a
Re:FireFox (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Informative)
*.website.com/*.swf would block all flash from *.website.com.
There is nothing different about blocking flash and blocking html frames or images.
You dont have a tab letting you play flash because its an ad filter, not some interactive flash player. Dont block something unless you dont want to see it.
Re:no FLASH (Score:3, Interesting)
have "run in IE" in your context menu, so you'd
right click, select that and be done, no cutting
no pasting, no going to start button.
As a side note, I personally don't like your
approach. The goal isn't to keep Mozilla clean, the
goal is to keep the screen clean. Worse yet, pages
that _really_ want to get to you, so much that they
would use flash may also try other underhanded tricks
like hijacks, so going to IE for the vilest pages
is a questionable tactic, IMHO
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Insightful)
it is hard to tell navigation flash from ads.
Yeah, and it's pretty amazing/annoying how many sites that do use Flash for navigation don't at least have a plain HTML index or site map page.
Navigation (Score:3, Informative)
Remember back in the old days, when people did HTML by hand? If you used a button or java, you always put a link in case the nav thingy failed, or if people were surfing with images off, since they had a brand new 14.4 modem (I did-a screaming replacement for my 9600).
Now I hear from people, mostly on dialup, (which is still very common), that this site or that s
Re:FireFox (Score:4, Interesting)
I switched to Firefox about a month ago, after I picked up a google browser hijack I coulden't get rid of, because it didn't support active X and VBscript the perferred methods of something like 80% of all unauthorized spyware/adware downloads.
The popup blocker was just a really nice extra bonus. When using IE w/ the Google Toolbar there were a few popups that got by now and then, but so far Firefox has been impervious. I am very happy with it.
Re:FireFox (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, thats what I mean. Whenever I would go to google and search for whatever, the resulting page would look almost exactly like Google but was full of crap paid listings instead of the real ones. Oddly enough the address still said www.google.com and if I clicked next at the bottom to go to the next page it would go to the real Google results.
So it was a browser hijack that effected google.
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FireFox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Informative)
It's very effective, although doesn't prevent ads being downloaded.
It's rather amusing, seeing something that says "advertisement: " and then... nothing.
Once again, "FIREFOX >> YOU," adservomg piece of trash.
Re:FireFox (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, according to Chomsky's hierarchy, regular expressions are equivalent to the simplest possible languages (automatic ones). Human languages are context-dependent, i.e. two levels more complex! I suppose you get my point
BTW, programming languages are (usually) context-independent, i.e. right in the middle of regular expressions and natural languages. Therefore, every kid at the age of 2 should be able to learn programming really easy
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Informative)
Argh!! (Score:2, Funny)
firefox rulez (Score:2)
Plus with FlashBlock, it gives me the option to not run a flash, etc.
It's amazing.
Add that to IP and domain name based blocking I do on my router, I can block most intrusive ad servers that try to take over the system.
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.texturizer.net/firefox/adblock.html
There it is. Of course, this is a bad solution if you want to prevent ads from downloading. Since by using the user-content the ads still download, they just don't display. It's OK for me since my net connection is college quality.
Re:FireFox (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't seen a popup in ages (except in IE of course).
Jw
NYtimes, Popular Science, and others (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't use adblock, I maintain a hosts file [everythingisnt.com] with known ad servers so the stuff never loads in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The wonderful program that is Proxomitron. (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps your best bet is to give the alternatives a try again when Firefox 1.0 comes out. The forthcoming 0.9 will be brilliant, but there's some new features in there (including seamless profile migration from IE, Netscape and Opera) and the new fe
Re:The wonderful program that is Proxomitron. (Score:4, Informative)
For example, one replace I have running in Proxomitron changes links on thumbnail galleries so that the point to the full image, rather than a page framing the image. This works transparently in Opera, Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Here is the replace I use for Google Image Search. The \1 represents the content being copied from the Matching expression to the Replacement expression.
Name = "Google Images - Direct Image Links"
Active = TRUE
Multi = TRUE
URL = "*.google.*"
Limit = 512
Match = "<a href=/imgres\?imgurl=\1\&*><img src="
Replace = "<a href="http://\1"><img src="
Re:The wonderful program that is Proxomitron. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mozilla AND Proximitron (Score:3, Informative)
Unless using an IE-only 'feature' (like ActiveX) is a requirement for that site, change the user agent string in Mozilla and it should work (most of the times, at least). The user agent switching extension is handy for that ^_^
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't get this.
Why does everyone advocate pointing these to 127.0.0.1?
127.0.0.1 is your local machine. It's not some magic blackhole address. Using 127.0.0.1 really messes you up if you happen to be running a web server on your machine (doing web development, say). It's bad advice.
It's so much easier to point them to 0.0.0.0. That works just as well in the hosts file, and since it's an invalid IP address, attempting to open a socket returns immediately with failure. No need to bounce the requests off your local machine, and your web browser instantly blocks images, pages, etc. from those domains.
RFC 3330 says...... (Score:3, Informative)
2. Global and Other Specialized Address Blocks
0.0.0.0/8 - Addresses in this block refer to source hosts on "this"
network. Address 0.0.0.0/32 may be used as a source address for this
host on this network; other addresses within 0.0.0.0/8 may be used to
refer to specified hosts on this network [RFC1700, page 4].
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3330.html [faqs.org]
enjoy
Yes, but RFC 1700 says ... (Score:3, Informative)
Note the highlighted bit. 0.0.0.0/32 (the address we commonly call 0.0.0.0) can be used as a SOURCE address. That's quite different from being used as a DESTINATION address, which is what the entries in the hosts file will be used for in this case.
You need to look at RFC 1700 [faqs.org] page 4, which the bit of RFC 3330 you quoted refers to:
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:2)
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it's stupid. I will actively avoid buying products where their adverts have annoyed me; but I think the logic is supposed to be as follows:
The target of the ad does not actively think "Wow - I really need that" but instead, when going to buy a product of that nature, they will go for the one that they've been exposed to the most. They don't buy the no-name deoderant, they buy the one with all the ads, etc, etc. I can tell you from experience in the food industry that often the difference between several products is just the labelling (and the price
The other explanation for it is the way that the businesses work. In the larger companies, advertising departments can have a lot of influence. They also have to justify themselves. I think there is a tendancy to view the public as a mindless force susceptible to their advertising. If they see that a lot of people are browsing the web rather than watching TV or reading magazines, then panic sets in - "Oh my $DEITY, we're not getting the coverage we were before. We must get it back."
I think it's this latter panic that is really the source of such bone-headed and irritating advertising.
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:5, Informative)
I can also verify from personal experience that most charcoal is the same, when I briefly worked at factory packaging charcoal all we did was switch bags when we had enough of brand-x for that days order.
Most 'house' brands of anything are of course re-badged as well.
A clever tip I learned a while back about comsumer electronics. If it's got a fcc id number you can look it up on thier (fcc's) website to see who really makes it. They only isue one number per device no matter how many people change the plastic and re-sell it.
Mycroft
Yes, very insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to assume that all or even most slashdot readers are clueful about linux. But even the most casual glance at the comments, even the highly rated ones, should show you that many/most of the posters here are indeed regular Windows users. They might be more aware of some of the benefits of using Linux or other FLOSS but they haven't bought into the full p
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:3, Insightful)
For these reasons:
1) A higher clickthrough means the marketing people see more success and continue to fund slashdot by advertising there - Linux websites could soon be self sustaining because of MS
2) It's good to see what MS are saying about Linux - it means we're better prepared to counter their FUD and also helps us think of areas where Linux is in need of improvement.
3) If the ad is pay per clickthrough then the ads
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't they see it won't work? (Score:3, Funny)
Any door-to-door salesman would tell you the folks with "No Salesman" signs on their front doors are almost always the easiest to sell.
Marketing has no logic (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are using a pop-up blocker, then you clearly ARE NOT going to appreciate the advertising and the money spent to bring it to you is completely worthless.
Another inane act from marketers.
Yes, how nice (Score:3, Insightful)
This post sponsored by the Sarcasm for Life initiative
Popup? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any workarounds the ad companies have found must be for the way the google toolbar works, not any of the above programs and their methodologies for blocking popups.
Since I don't use IE and that toolbar at all, I don't care!
Re:Popup? (Score:3, Informative)
Google != all popup blockers (Score:5, Interesting)
So let's get this straight- one "photographer from the UK" installed Google popup blocker, and then it stopped working(probably, if anything, because her machine got infected with spyware/adware). What about Mozilla's blocking functionality? Opera? Safari? Oops, that'd be asking too much of our dear news.com.com.com.com.com reporter(and folks- remember why they use "news.com.com"; so their tracking cookies work across all their sites).
I use Safari's popup blocking setting and it works fantastically. All of the time. Since the day I started using Safari- ie, the day it was publicly beta'd.
What I really want, however, is a "turn off flash" quick menu item, same for animated gifs; Opera had that, and it was great. Disabling all plugins actually works pretty well too, and kills off many rather annoying ads.
Re:Google != all popup blockers (Score:2)
I use it an it works very well
Re:Google != all popup blockers (Score:5, Informative)
What I really want, however, is a "turn off flash" quick menu item, same for animated gifs
Get PithHelmet [culater.net], a great little ad blocker for Safari. Supresses most Flash crap, and you can limit animated gifs to a single run. The web is a much calmer place with PithHelmet installed.
Don't worry... (Score:2, Insightful)
Kjella
Re:Don't worry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes it much easier for the individuals (not consumers) of the world to block all pop-ups without much loss, and makes it harder for the advertisers to find wiggle-room.
Shh! (Score:4, Funny)
Silence! Google can do no evil.
Re:Shh! (Score:2)
Examples of some sneakier popup methods (Score:5, Informative)
Good Try Advertisers... (Score:4, Funny)
P2P solution (Score:4, Interesting)
The article talks about how Javascript mouseover commands are being used to launch popup windows in a "user-prompted" fashion, thereby defeating Google's and other vendors' popup blockers that rely on detecting non-requested popups.
So, what is needed is a browser plugin that communicates with a central server. As a user of this plugin, when I encounter a popup ad or a Flash ad, I simply close it manually with ctrl-click or something similar, and the plugin reports the Javascript command that originally launched the ad to the server. Whenever any Web page tries to spawn a new window, the plugin checks with the server to see if the page and Javascript line in question is trying to spawn an ad. A plurality of "yes" votes -- ctrl-clicks from users like me who visited the page earlier -- would cause the plugin to suppress the unwanted window or Flash feature.
You would need a voting system to prevent abuse of the system by people reporting legitimately-requeted popups. Dynamically-composed pages would be another problem, but perhaps the domain-specific nature of ads would be sufficient to detect unwanted popups. (Even simple rules like "Never close windows spawned by mbnanetaccess.com; always close windows spawned by forbes.com" would be a big step ahead of the current state of the art in popup-blocking).
popups? (Score:2)
Heh heh heh. [/smirk]
Re:popups? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most definitely. My girlfriend and I recently got back from college, and I'm astounded what's happened to her family's computer. I haven't gotten over there to fix it yet (was planning to today actually), but she ran a virus scan and found 91 viruses, mostly adware (Hasn't actually scanned for adware yet). She can't use internet explorer because just opening it fills the screen with popups.
I guess this is what happens when two parrents and a fifteen year old who aren't at all tech savy are left with a computer for 9 months.
How about attacking these ads with false positives (Score:5, Interesting)
How hard would it be to create a browser plugin that will hide the ads, but still 'click' on them? If the the number of such plugins in use became prevalent enough, then the advertisers would be charged more money, since their accounts show more click throughs. But since these are false positives, the increase in sales associated with those click throughs would not materialize.
Once this hits a critical mass, all such ads will become useless, nothing more then costly traffic that drains dramatically more revenue then it creates.
You wont get rats to stop trying to eat your food by hiding it. They just look harder for it because they know its still there. But if you can poison the food, they will die painfully.
END COMMUNICATION
I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But people insist on requiring it to use their buttons on their sites sometimes, so instead of putting so much effort into detecting when a pop-up is coming, I'd much prefer it if there was an easy way to turn scripting on or off. Like a tiny toolbar with two little radio buttons.
Anybody know off the top of their heads if that's do-able without waiting for Microsoft to do it?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
Can't Stop Tech (Score:5, Insightful)
That knife cuts both ways. You'll keep developing new ways to serve adds, and we'll keep blocking them.
I do think, however, that there are more people who dislike popups than who benefit from their continuing as a viable marketing option.
Advantage: Us.
Is it just me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong audience (Score:2, Insightful)
The most annoying advert I've had so far... (Score:2)
Security issue (Score:3, Interesting)
cue the pimpers... (Score:4, Interesting)
The best solution is a browser that has built in popup support, not a lame IE hack of some kind. The worst solution is popup signitures which tend to change over time as companies try to break popup blockers which rely on signitures.
I use a mac... (Score:2, Interesting)
IE will block pop-ups? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fear the worst (Score:5, Informative)
In response to the adblocking technology several new ad formats are being approved for general usage and they all suck.Basically the new ad formats are much much bigger than the current sizes. I can't remember what sizes they were but I was crying when I was told. (bad luck 800x600 users)
Other "great" news from the cutting edge of advertising is that more full movie streaming ads will become popular (obviously with advertisers not with users)
And worst of all what are currently blockable popup ads will be replaced with Flash overlays that fly around screen.
Apparently the IAB did an expensive study in the states into what normal users thought of all these new ad formats (pop-ups, pop-unders, flash overlays, dhtml etc,) And the result was that most users call all annoying ads "pop-ups" and they really hate them. Well duh, I'm not sure what the point of *that* study was for.
On the plus side I remember hearing that IAB guidlines will recommend all flash overlays have a close button.
So in general the whole state of affairs depresses me ALOT. I don't think the IAB/advertisers have even got Avalon on their radar yet, but I imagine Avalon ads will enable a whole new generation of annoying ads.
For normal users this will all suck, but most of the ads probably won't work on a standard debian install so
Re:Fear the worst (Score:3, Interesting)
All of these sound trivial to block. IE probably won't be updated to deal with them for years, if ever, but I forsee no problems for Firefox and Camino, and probably Safari.
For normal users this will all suck, but most of the ads prob
The really subtle ads use DHTML (Score:3, Interesting)
And since mozilla is one of the few standards-complant browsers that allow you to do overlays properly, you can get these ads. If the DHTML serves the ad from the same site as the webhost, it is much, much harder to block.
Weird... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Weird... (Score:3, Informative)
No annoying popups with tabs (Score:5, Informative)
Parasites (Score:4, Insightful)
Around 1996 or so, a friend was lamenting the increasing commercialization of the Internet. I remember thinking that he was maybe overreacting a bit, and that the trend was maybe even a good thing since it didn't take away any of the other uses of the net, but just added to it. And at the time, it was in fact quite benign, and often even positive. But now, spammers and web marketers are abusing and undeniably damaging the medium. When users have to criple features to stem the deluge of marketing, those features are rendered unviable for desireable uses as well. It isn't benign at all anymore. The cancer of Internet commercialization is now malignant.
Just be smart about how you browse (Score:3, Interesting)
I get most angry when i visit a friend's home, and they complain about the incessant pop-ups. Usually, they have gotten adware on their computer.
The sad thing is, they're usually ignorant of how it happened. I remember, two weeks ago, my buddy was using my computer, and i told him "Use Firefox" and he was like "No, I like IE." I went to pick up a friend, and by the time i got back, there was already some Claria powered program installed on my computer. He swore up and down he didn't install anything, but it didnt matter, i had to run Ad-Aware and SpyBot (Search and Destroy) to get rid of all the crap that had got installed in less than an hour.
Now, when i fix my friends's computers, i put Firefox and Privoxy on their computers. They don't bitch to me anymore about pop-ups.
gum2me?
Simple pop-up blockers don't cut it (Score:5, Informative)
As far as Proxomitron goes, it makes my surfing much more pleasurable. Annoying Flash ads that pop up and make noise and block what you're reading? Gone. Pop-up mouse traps? I laugh in their face. Sidebar/banner ads? What are those? Sometimes, however, the Proxomitron DOES munge some sites due to its filtering, but all you have to do is double click its taskbar icon, punch the "Bypass" button, and reload your browser. A small price to pay compared to punching your monitor in because an ad just took over your browser.
For fighting spam, popups and malware in general, I find Cexx [cexx.org] to be a good site. They have a decent list of anti spyware/adware apps, and lenghthy and informative analyses of the various spyware running around.
Opera (Score:4, Informative)
I'm surprised that they haven't figured this out.
Floater ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, a lot of floaters only work on IE. I'm mostly safe w/ Sarafi or Mozilla.
We need some new rules enforced in the browser (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Windows opened from scripting are treated as children of the parent window. When the parent window closes, so must the child window. When the parent window is moved to the back or minimized, the child windows must do the same. (You can still minimize or dismiss the child window, of course.)
-
Windows opened by scripting should retain some visual association with the parent window. They
should overlap it at least slightly, unless the
user moves the window.
-
Windows opened by scripting have a user-settable maximum size. Anything bigger than this comes up with scroll bars.
-
Flash animations must be closeable and blockable.
Flash, and all other "controls", should run in a jail, permitted to talk to the screen and the originating site only. There must be right-click menu options to kill any "control", whether it likes it or not.
-
All windows have close buttons.
-
No script can open more than one window per user click.
We need to keep control of the browser GUI in the user's hands, no matter what the site tries to do.My new advertising scheme (Score:5, Funny)
I plan to hire thousands of people to pass out hand-bills door-to-door. What? Not new? Oh yes it is... Studies show that prime-time for this activity is when people are home! So part of the plan is to knock on their doors during dinner time. Still not new? I'm not done... After they answer the door, he will push his way into your home and punch you in the face, change the channel on your TV to always come up to our commercials, change the speed dials on your phone while we are putting a bug in it so we know who you are calling, and then tape the handbill to your face with duct tape so you can't miss seeing it.
We think that will be enough to make people want to buy our stuff...
Its link farms on google that bug me the most... (Score:3, Insightful)
- experts exchange. I never want to see you guys, I want links to the developer's website + mail archives (this one I block by having my own customized html form for google with the extra options)
- searching for a 'review' of any electronic product pops up screeds of reseller online catalogues, best price guides etc and never one fucking review. You have to add words which are likely to appear in a review, like 'sucks' and 'shiny' to find the real reviews.
- searching for bands gives the same shit - catalogue style interfaces purporting to tell me everything I wanted to know about the band, but in reality its one of a bazillion holding pages.
Can we install ad blockers on Google??!!
Ad Performance... (Score:5, Insightful)
This probably has something to do with the fact that a large percentage of pop ups use deceptive techniques to get someone to click on them unwittingly.
From 'System Needs to Update, click anywhere in this window to Update your system', to 'Your system is not secure, click anywhere in this window to secure your system', to "Error Xb3t10-2, click anywhere in this window to continue", to ads that simulate windows and have their own 'close' buttons that are just part of the ad graphics, (Even I have accidentally clicked on those a few times,) there are myriad different 'strategies' that advertiseers use to trick people into thinking that the pop up is not an ad, but an essential message from their computer machine that they should obey.
Meanwhile, people have learned that 'click to win' banner ads generally aren't worth their time, and so they have stopped clicking on them as often as they used to.
With the current batch of viruses growing larger and more dangerous, there will be more people that know they should be worried abotu viruses,
As to floaters and various flash ads, browser makers and macromedia need to take some responsibility and provide options to prevent that kind of crap. Going to a website and then having a floating ad with motion and sound that I cannot close, or an ad that floats over what I am trying to read, is quite irritating, and I will never purchase.
For some companies that I normally buy from, I have sent letters explaining that their intrusive ads have caused me to lower my expenditures on their products. Generally I get back a canned response that places the blame on the advertising firm that made the ad. Apparently advertising firms are privateers now, that companies give payment and blessing to, and then take no respoinsibility for.
Get rid of the spyware... (Score:3, Informative)
In my experience, 99% of the popups comefrom spyware that is installed on the computer. If the software (spyware) is causing popups, google or any other blocker won't do jack.
Article plays games with the stats (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not a very good way to look at the numbers. A better way is to point out the April 2003 numbers as well, Then you get a much better idea of the trend:
2002: 1.8 percent
2003: 6.0 percent
2004: 6.4 percent
The article says that the ads have tripled since the rise of the pop-up blockers, and while that's true, it is also true that the vast majority of that growth came before mid-2003. In the year since then, ad growth has been almost stangnant -- exactly what you would expect to see as the ad whores gradually realize that people hate their guts enough to take steps to rid them from their lives.
No, to me those numbers tell me the opposite of the conclusion reached by the article author. To me those numbers say that pop-up blockers were not only effective, they were noticed by the ad companies and it caused a slowdown in pop-up ad trends. Of course, being the lowlifes that they are, they are now going to other method to force us to see what we have explicitly shown them we don't want to see. But that's par for the course for these leeches.
Only Once (Score:4, Insightful)
Bzzzt. Wrong!
If a site goes to that much trouble to circumvent my blockers, well, I just don't visit it anymore.
Problem solved! Well for me anyway
Oh yes, I alwyas use the feedbak/comments page to TELL the site operators that they have lost my eyeballs.
If enough people would just stop visiting these sites.....
There are alternatives on the Internet.
How I Block Popups, and What Still Annoys Me (Score:3, Informative)
I use two blockers, one by accident. I downloaded Google's toolbar [google.com] because it helps me find anything anywhere on the net in about three seconds, rather than navigating to the Google home page [google.com] in an additional two seconds. Time is money!
The other blocker I use is Ad-Watch, included with LavaSoft's Ad-Aware [lavasoftusa.com] if you get the Plus or Premium version. Any pop-ups that the Google toolbar doesn't catch are caught by Ad-Watch, and I almost never see any at all. (The only time I do see them is when Ad-Watch is temporarily disabled or when I'm doing so much that my CPU can't keep up with me.)
This leaves one breed of ads that still annoy me, and I'm not talking about static banner ads, because tend to stay out of my way. I'm talking about the dynamic or floating banner ads, which are horrible because they cover up the content of the site I'm trying to view either for a few seconds or sometimes for an indefinite amount of time (until I find the tiny "close" button). I actually think some of these are blocked on occasion, but I know that they're what I see most these days (especially on ESPN and IGN), and I'd really like to see them go. So if anyone has any clue how to get rid of them, feel free to clue me in!
Re:Ditch IE? (Score:5, Informative)
But, smartupdate which will automatically update your browser, extensions and themes is going to be a great feature in 0.9 and will hopefully pull a few more IE users over.
Re:Not the Answer (Score:5, Funny)
Would the ones that promote disabling features really want to go back to the crappy featureless, tool-less, mostly text internet that we had only 7 or 8 years ago?
Yes please!
HTTP != "The Internet" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need pop-ups? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Preferences toolbar, please (Score:3, Interesting)
They do make such a thing. It's called PrefBar [mozdev.org] and it's a mozilla plugin.
Re:Todays popup blockers suck (Score:3, Interesting)