There are some nifty utilities that can prevent some of the things some of us find annoying when we browse new sites. These annoyances include pop ups and pop unders, ad banners, persistent cookies, and others.

Here are some utilities that control one or more of these pests.

Multiple function
Proxomitron http://spywaresucks.org/prox/

Ad Subtract http://www.adsubtract.com 3 different versions (I've just recently begun using the Pro version to block ad banners and in place of Kill Ad, though I still prefer Cookie Pal for cookie control

Kill Ad http://www.wplus.net/pp/fsc/ prevents pop ups
Cookie Pal http://www.kburra.com nifty cookie utility

Enjoy.

Go ahead and make that 1500 post!

yes, the web is a popup city!
ill definately look into these programs :)

thanks

You're welcome. I've use 3 of the 4 programs. I can tell you that one limitations that Kill Ad has is that it doesn't distinguish between new browser windows you want to open and those opened by javascript or other means as popups. With sound enabled, it was neat hearing a gentle squishing sound as the popups got squished.

I still use Cookie Pal ($15 shareware) even though Ad Subtract Pro has a cookie manager. Cookie Pal very easily lets you have lists of sites to always accept cookies from, always reject, or decide on an individual basis for each session.

I downloaded Proxomitron earlier tonight and will be testing it, It has even more control over various items than Ad Subtract does. It is also free, not even shareware.

I didn't click on ads anyway. Now I don't have annoying ad banners flashing in my face.

If only there were a program that would do that for television!

Originally posted by Duster

If only there were a program that would do that for television!

http://www.tivo.com/

Just remember some of us are running sites where 100 % of the revenue is from ad banners... :(

Into all lives some rain must fall.

You lose nothing for those people who don't click on the ads anyway. Even if you do, it's our choice not to see ads as it is yours to have them.

I (and most other people who run sites with ads) would have no problem blocking access to users who are using ad-blocking software if and when it becomes more prevalent.

If you're using our bandwidth to view a site, you should help pay for it by viewing the banners that are on there. I have no problem with the blocking software, but again, I would also have no problem blocking those users that use the software from viewing my site.

Someone has to pay for the hosting of these sites. TANSTAAFL eh?

Originally posted by Planet Z
I (and most other people who run sites with ads) would have no problem blocking access to users who are using ad-blocking software if and when it becomes more prevalent.

Sounds like a good idea. While I've never placed an ad on any site of mine, I may do so in the future with a few ideas rattling around in my brain. Pop-Up ads are as annoying as all hell and reduce my urge to ever go to a site again, but general banner ads and what-not do serve a purpose. By everyone using software to block those ads people lose money from the viewing of those ads.

The idea of blocking access to people who wish to block the ads on those sites has my support. If you don't want to 'pay' for the privilage of using and/or reading someone's work through a little bit of visual pollution.

With the ad market dropping like a stone lately these guys who use banners to cover costs need a bit of support. It's all fine and good to sit up on the horse and bleat about how badly ads offend you, but I'm quite sure that a membership signup blocking access on every second site you went to would offend you more.

Joe Public has an excuse to wail about ad pollution, but I would imagine hosting companies would at least have a better understanding of why people have ads on their sites. Or maybe they just presume people enjoy reaching into their own pockets to pay for others net viewing pleasure.

Greg Moore

hehe, the sage has spoken.

Personally, I wouldn't use any of those program to block ads. Although I find that those ads are 100%(or close) useless to my needs, I tend to think, as I run a few websites, that ad is still a part of money revenue.

I see many people use programs to get rid of ads on ICQ and many other programs. Now it seems they are doing it on browser as well.

While Duster may be right that we may choose not to see the ads , I don't think it is right thing to get rid of ads.

"Money makes the world goes around"

All sites with ad banners are not the same. Some have them without needing them just to make a few dollars. Let's face it, a lot of people think the Internet is just a big advertising medium.

The worst offenders are the pop ups (and pop unders). When I use search engines and go to a new site, I don't want a mess of ads popping up all over the place, even more if I hit back and try to exit. Top that off with the redirects that porn sites and others have from innocent sounding domains, and those they buy up upon expiration, and I think any reasonable person can see a real need for ad blocking software, even if you depend on such revenues.

Some of these programs are configurable so that you can allow ads from specific sites and not others (as with cookies and such), so it is possible to support favorite sites.

On a separate though related note for those of you with ad banners, do you get paid just from having a banner on a page on your site? From reading discussions on the subject, I was under the impression that payment was contingent upon people clicking on the banner ad. I've seen CTR (Click Through Rate mentioned many times. In fact, one site I frequent asked that people click on the ads to increase the ad revenues.

Yes, some of us get paid per impression/page view. It's the preferred method for most site owners but advertisers often get cheaper rates paying per click.

I think there's a simple solution to you problem of not liking ads on websites. Don't visit those sites. If you can't find the info you want without ads, well that's your tough luck. Using ad blocker software is stealing in exactly the same way that hotlinking images from another site is stealing.

Originally posted by Duster
On a separate though related note for those of you with ad banners, do you get paid just from having a banner on a page on your site? From reading discussions on the subject, I was under the impression that payment was contingent upon people clicking on the banner ad. I've seen CTR (Click Through Rate mentioned many times. In fact, one site I frequent asked that people click on the ads to increase the ad revenues.

I can't speak for other webmasters, but I know I get paid according to both. Mainly CPM (Cost per thousand banner impressions), not CPC.

I can understand blocking popups, as they can actually become extremely annoying. I won't run any popup/under ads on my sites. However, I don't think it's right to block all ads.

Hmm, anyone notice the new look of wht :) i think it looks alot better, well... now to this conversation, its a big one, i have my tips on planetz and duster :)

hehe j/k :)

My preference: I do feel that we owe the webmaster in some way therefore i won't use ad blocking software.


:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

Originally posted by jnestor
Using ad blocker software is stealing in exactly the same way that hotlinking images from another site is stealing.
No it's not! Not all sites with ads are the same (read my post above). It is nothing like hotlinking.

Well, my programmer is working on a script that will check certain images/banners are being loaded from the server. If they aren't you will get a message that you will have to disable your ad blocker in order to see the site.

Sorry but I don't want any "free surfers" on my site. We all need to pay in some way :)

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to:

There have been so many complaints about X-10's annoying pop up ads that they have this http://www.x10.com/home/optout.cgi?DAY=30&PAGE=http://www.x10.com/x10ads1.htm

I can do better and can guarantee that no X-10 pop up ad will ever appear again in my browser.

For those of you voicing your objections to programs that block these annoyances, while it is your right to do so, this is not a poll on the subject. You can block surfers who block ads (and someone will probably come up with a script that defeats that). However, you may wish to consider that it may bring into question what your primary motivation is, to make money from advertising or whatever the purpose of your site is. You may also wish to consider that some people might decide your site isn't worth visiting with such restrictions.

Think about it. Responses are neither necessary, requested, nor desired. Think about it, and do whatever you feel is in your best interests.

I think the geniuses behind the X10's ad campaign made a big mistake when they deployed it. Sure, pop-under ads on many popular sites ensured that no one could avoid seeing the ads, but ...

Although the x10 is a household name now, it's not branded as the camera that everyone wants to buy, but the 'annoying ad from hell'.

The problem isn't the camera, the sites who are getting ad revenue, but the people behind the ad campaign itself who made it too prevalent, ran it too long, and shot themselves and their client in the foot.

Hopefully they learn from their lesson eventually and rework their ad campaign.

Originally posted by Duster

However, you may wish to consider that it may bring into question what your primary motivation is, to make money from advertising or whatever the purpose of your site is. You may also wish to consider that some people might decide your site isn't worth visiting with such restrictions.


Huh? So what if someone's primary purpose of a site is to make money. If they are providing valuable information, why does it matter? There are a lot of sites out there that sell ads just to cover the cost of leasing a server. It is important to those webmasters to make that money, so they can continue providing the service, why would you want to take that away from them?