Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker...
From: Johnny Canuck (Johnny_Canuck1_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: David Postill: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Previous message: «bonehead;\): "Re: Cracking admin password on Win 2000; then putting it back?"
- In reply to: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Next in thread: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Reply: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:20:21 GMT
>
> Still hunting, I see, by reposting your near-same prior inquiry of a week
> ago
> (http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=Hf04d.30513%24yW6.15965%40clgrps12,
> except #3 for AX and #4 for anonymous surfing changed to just #3 for
> malware but which is "ad blocker" in your Subject). Hopefully this
> doesn't become a weekly repost.
Actually about 12 hours after I had posted that other message I had this
one posted BUT it was stuck in my outbox.
I had replies on the other thread so I didn't need this message but I didn't
notice that it didn't go through until I saw it in my "sent list" just
now...
> The problems that I have with ad blockers is that they sometimes block
> non-ads. They also rely on substrings that may be perfectly legit (that's
> why you have a whole list of exceptions already pre-programmed when you
> first install the ad blocker program and you'll later have to add your own
> exceptions; I had to do that for Creative which had "ads" somewhere in the
> URL to review your trouble reports with them). Some sites will refuse to
> function (i.e., proffer any of their content) if you block the downloading
> of ALL the content of their web page since they use that revenue to offset
> the cost of the resources needed to present you with that web page you get
> to access for free. You might not realize this and wonder by you got a
> blank page with "Done" in the status line. Or you hit a page that uses
> Macromedia's Flash to paint the menues and other content of that page but
> which also includes the ads, so you could block Flash content but then you
> get a blank page if they don't offer an non-Flash version of the page.
>
> I refuse to let them dictate how the resources on MY computer get used
> (like popups, ActiveX or Java applet downloads, cookies, fonts, etc.) but
> similarly they should be able to dictate what is THEIR content. If you
> don't want that content, don't go there. You get their content for free
> so where are they going to generate revenue to pay for that web site?
> Yeah, I personally do not like seeing ads but I also see their viewpoint
> in compensation for their costs to provide that site. If you take the
> attitude that you shouldn't have to see part of their content (i.e., the
> ads) to see the rest then understand they have an equal right not to give
> you any of their content unless you see it all. If they wish to offer
> partial content with me blocking ads then that was their choice and you
> get to surf ad-free. If they wish to block all their content unless you
> see their ads (which is part of their content) then that's perfectly okay
> with me, too. Most users are ignorant of the repercussions of ad
> blocking. Good sites with helpful tools or information often disappear
> simply because they cannot afford to keep the site running because their
> users are blocking the ads they need to generate revenue to pay for the
> resources of that site. But then most end users are running web sites or
> having to pay for them. Most users have an exceedingly unrealistic view
> that everyone else should be altruistic to their visitors. So, how many
> days each week do you work for free for your employer? I'm still on the
> fence regarding ad blocking.
actually you make an EXCELLENT point about adblocking, there are a lot of
great sites that need the ad revenue to survice. Pop up blocking is fine
but ad block shouldn't be. That is why popupcop is good since each page
gets it's own "virtual session". Solidly agree with you on this point.
> In the prior thread of a week ago, Panicware was mentioned as including ad
> blocking. NIS has its web filtering for ad blocking but I'm close to
> disabling that feature since it interferes with the proper operation of
> many web sites. AdSubtract has been around for awhile.
>
Ad blocking is not a feature I need.
I've downloaded popupcop, but haven't installed it since I need to reinstall
my WinOS this weekend because of a couple of fatally damaged files.
I'll give popupcop a run through after that. Thanks again for your help
vanguardx, not only have you given my a nice suggestion on software, you've
alerted me to other issues (such as some websits needing cookies to operate,
the role ads play for smaller sites, etc.) that have me thinking as well.
[offtopic: I just did a anti-virus post in the other group to see what
people think, but the link you gave me seems to point to Kapersky being the
best, with AVG being pretty decent for a free program. I didn't notice that
this thread was still in that outbox or I would have deleted. Are you my
shadow btw ;)
JC
- Next message: David Postill: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Previous message: «bonehead;\): "Re: Cracking admin password on Win 2000; then putting it back?"
- In reply to: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Next in thread: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Reply: Vanguardx: "Re: Best cookie/popup/ad blocker..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
