homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.201.253
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 100 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
Norton Internet Security includes Personal Firewall - PF blocks everything!
Gabor




msg:550787
 6:10 pm on Jan 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure if you know about this because I couldn't see a thread anywhere...

In the advanced settings of Norton, there is a list of URL strings that cause a URL to be blocked....

Here's part of them:

#CLink
%23CLink
%2Fads%2E
%3Fad%2E
&ad_
&banner=
-ad.cgi
.ads/
.ad.
.ads.
.ads/
.bluestreak.com
.eshop.
.net-on.com
.webconnect.net
/199.78.52.
/?ad.
/ad-
/.ad.
/ad/
/ad_control
/ad.image
/ad.track/
/adbot.
/adclient.
/adcontent.
/adcouncil/
/adgifs/
/adgraph/
/adimages/
/adinfo
/adjuggler
/adlog.
/adman.
/adnet.
/adnet/
/adpics/
/adpopup
/adproof/
/aredirect
/adrevolver/
/ads-
/ads.
/ads/
/adsales
/adserv
/adspace
/adsrc
/adv/
/advert/
/advertentie
/advertise/
/advertiser/
/advertising/
/adverts/
/adview.
/banner.
/banner/
/banner=
/banner_images/
/banners/
/by.banclk?
/clickover.
/cyberfirst
/follow_ad?
/generate_ad.
/graphics/advert
/htmlad/
/jbanner/
/liveads/
/nph-bounce?
/nph-load?
/nph-redir?
/promo_gif/
/promos/
/promote/
/promotions/
/rankem.cgi?action=
/sponsor.
/sponsor/
/sponsors/
/videobanners/
/viewad/
1-2-free.com
199.172.144.25/2
?acb=acb
?ad.cgi
?ad=
?Adcode=
?adlink
?adserv
?adv=
?advertID=
_ad.
_ads/
a32.g.a.yimg.com/7
ad.doubleclick.net
ad.infoseek.com
ad.linkexchange.com
ad.preferences.com
ad.tw.doubleclick.net/ad/
adbanner
adbot.com
adcenter.in2.com
AdClick
adcount.hollywood.com
adlink.htm
adlink.preferences.com
adman.medius.net
adoptimizer
adredir.asp
ads.adsmart.net
ads.clickagents.com
ads.imagine-inc.com

and others:
ads.imdb.com
ads.infospace.com
ads.lycosasia.com.sg/realmedia/ads/
ads.narrowline.com
ads.realmedia.com
ads.softbank.net
ads.usatoday.com
ads.washingtonpost.com
ads.web.aol.com
ads.web21.com
adserver.adtech.de
advertisements
advertising.com
alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=
allpolitics.com/ads/
ar.atwola.com
badservant.guj.de
banner_ad
bannerad
bannerexchange.com
bannerpower.com
bannerswap.com
bf_home_ad
bfast.com/booklink
cc-dt.com
click1.wisewire.com
click100.genesis.com
click2.wisewire.com
click2net.com
clk_thru^
commonwealth.riddler.com
count4all.com
crosswalk.com/click.ng/transactionid=
dirtycash.com
ds.cybereps.com
exchange-it.com/click.go?
eyeblasterscript
fastclick.net/w/click.here
findcommerce.com/tracking
flycast.com
focalink.com
geoad?
globaltrack.com
globaltrak.net
hg1.hitbox.com
home.keyciti.com/addd2000/ok.shtml
[us.i1.yimg.com...]
images/mainad
imgis.com
impartner.de/cgi-bin/
infoback.net
infoseek.com/redirect
java.yahoo.com/a/1-/flash
java.yahoo.com/a/1-/java
java.yahoo.com/a/a-/flash
java.yahoo.com/a/a-/java
linkexchange.com
linksynergy.com
mantel/
maxcash.cgi?
mediahits.com/click.fcg
mediaserv.247media.com
mirror.qkimg.net
movielink.com/media/imagelinks/mf.ad
movielink.com/media/imagelinks/mf.sponsor
netads.hotwired.com
netbanner.com/cgi-bin/
nrsite.com
pagecount.com
pathfinder.com/r0/marketing
pathfinder.com/sponsors
pegasoweb.com
pennyweb.com
progcgi/ads
qksrv.net
rd.yahoo.com/m=2
rd.yahoo.com/m=3
rd.yahoo.com/m=4
rd.yahoo.com/m=5
rd.yahoo.com/m=6
rds.yahoo.com/m=0
rds.yahoo.com/m=1
rds.yahoo.com/m=7
rds.yahoo.com/m=8
rds.yahoo.com/m=9
register-it.netscape.com/
rmbclick.com/
rn11.com
safe-audit.com
service.bfast.com
showad.asp
smartclicks.com
spinbox.
stats.hitbox.com
submit-it.com/images
telecom-pros.com/images
texchange.com/cgi-bin/
tracker.clicktrade.com
tracker.tradedoubler.com
us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a
valueclick.com
vk4voam2y
vwwzjwwlv9m2cr
websponsors.com/cgi-bin/
webunion.com/cgi-localbin/click.cgi?
ww3.cybercity.com.tw/adexe/
www.247media.com.tw
www.admax.com.tw/
www.admax.com/
www.ads.warnerbros.com
www.anonymizer.com/cm/door.cgi?
www.asiad.net/
www.banner.com.tw/
www.bannerwomen.com
www.clickadhere.com/
www.clickxchange.com/fr.phtml
www.cyberone.com.tw
www.epaper.com.tw/cgi-bin/adm/ad_red
www.halee.com/advert/
www.link4link.com/cgi-bin/
www.marketspace
www.modchip.com/clickcgi/click.cgi?
www.netvigator.com.tw/popad/
www.nj.com/adverts
www.nrsite.com
www.search.com/banners
www.warehouse.com/netbuyer/ticker/
www.whispa.com/tracking/
www.wishing.com/webaudit/
yahoo.com/adv/
yahoo.com/categoryid=0
yimg.com/images/compliance/

Adsense is displaying but it is unclickable.
Basically any banners with the sie of 468X60 are blocked.

I don't like it!

 

Scooter24




msg:550847
 3:55 pm on Apr 9, 2004 (gmt 0)

In case anybody is interested, there is a German software house which developed a software which circumvents popup blockers, i.e. delivers ads even if the user has a popup blocker enabled. The article (sorry only in German) is here:
[golem.de...]

They do so basically by checking if there is an enabled popup blocker and in that case serve the ad as a "Layer ad".

[edited by: eljefe3 at 4:21 am (utc) on April 14, 2004]

ebobnar




msg:550848
 12:14 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

binary1000, I was wondering if the workaround you did for CJ and BFast also worked for google adsense. I know that google delivers their ads in a different way than CJ and BFast, so I'm not sure that the META REFRESH technique will work.

thanks,

ebobnar

kwngian




msg:550849
 10:12 am on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

What about using ip addresses instead. eg. 216.239.57.99 instead of pagead2.googlesyndication.com in the javascript of Google Adsense.

ebobnar




msg:550850
 10:14 pm on Apr 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

My understanding is that the google adsense link dynamically includes some javascript code when your web page is loaded. This javascript code contains banned urls, so when norton sees it, it strips out the included javascript, or inserts something that nullifies it, or whatever.

The point being that even if you rewrite the banned google adsense url, it still points to a location that downloads some javascript that contains additional banned urls. As far as I can tell, there is no way to intercept and rewrite these urls before norton gets ahold of them.

Admittedly, my javascript kung fu is yellow belt at best, so there may be some black belts out there that know how to do this.

ebizcamp




msg:550851
 4:36 am on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

A follow-up to this topic. I have installed NIS 2004 for several days.

Till now, I have not found any website can display AdSense & CJ codes properly when my NIS is on. But some websites are able to detect if you have NIS (or similar) installed. If yes, AdSense & CJ codes will not be displayed hence the visitor will not get a un-clickable area (for AdSense) or a blank block (for CJ).

charlier




msg:550852
 6:27 am on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Keyplyr wrote:
>That's fine, this is in my htaccess:

>RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Blocked\ by\ Norton [NC,OR]

Could you explain how that works a bit. I understand a bit about how Rewrite rules work but how is the adblockers presence detected?

I think people do want to block ads because they find them annoying and it enhances their web surfing to not see them.

But, I suspect if half the sites they went to popped up a page saying they can't view the site they would find the surfing experience a little frustrating :-)

Catalyst




msg:550853
 4:40 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi all, many of you know I have done alot of research in this area and have a list of fixes. A new company just contacted me that has a free fix and is almost ready to let me announce it. They also have a page you can link to with screenshots and explanations of how to turn off or configure Norton so it does not block content.

Also discovered some fairly good copy on MyWay (owned by Jeeves) that instructs users what to do if part of the site is not viewable. BTW I also like their "no popups" disclaimer at the bottom of page, which could alert users to the fact that they may have adware on their machine.

[help.myway.com...]

Linda

richlowe




msg:550854
 5:29 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you offered a magazine screening service that provided 4-color reporoductions of magazines with all ads whited-out, and you didn't compensate the original publisher in any manner, you would be blatantly guilty of copyright violations.

True. But if you offered a service that accepted the magazines in the mail and cut the advertisements out before sending them on, then you would NOT be guilty of anything.

ebizcamp




msg:550855
 6:57 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this works:

Change standard banner size (by default blocked by NIS) to non-standard size, say 121*61 instead of 120*60.

For CJ's code, delete www.qksrv.net/ from CJ's code, use mod_rewrite to rewrite click(image)-****-**** to its real URL

jb_davis




msg:550856
 11:55 pm on May 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Adblocking is the greatest thing ever. Now, it's my choice as to what I see. I use privoxy to block all ads. I don't see pop-ups(unders)/banners/skyscraper ads/adsense/ or even the sponsored links on the google search results. It's my decision what is put on my screen, not the website owner.

Earlier someone likened NIS to mailbox that strips out ads from magazines, well really it's more like getting a magazine home and then cutting the ads out. It's your magazine and you can do what you want with it. Yes, I know it does it by default, but that's a good thing for people who might not turn it on, now they too can enjoy the internet the way it was meant to be, adfree.

I applaud Norton for helping clean the internet of ads, NO ONE wants them, and given the choice--and donít fool yourself, we always will have the choice--everyone will use the internet without them.

ebizcamp




msg:550857
 12:54 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

jb_davis,

You enjoy surfing the net. It's okay -- as long as there are websites for you to surf. If websites go out of business, you will have no sites to surf.

fidibidabah




msg:550858
 4:04 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Ha, well I understand it's your first post, and by all means we welcome you here.

But honestly, that's one of the most comical things I've read in a long time.

I'm not sure however if this is the right thread (or if there is any right thread) to get into the details of these sort of things. But since the topic is simply a blanket statement, I'm going to go ahead with it, and the mods can delete and fix as they see fit.

"Adblocking is the greatest thing ever. Now, it's my choice as to what I see. I use privoxy to block all ads. I don't see pop-ups(unders)/banners/skyscraper ads/adsense/ or even the sponsored links on the google search results. It's my decision what is put on my screen, not the website owner."

This might be one of the most (innadvertantly) selfish things I've ever read. It's your decision what is put on your screen? Well, sure you're right. But what the website owner DOES get to decide is what's on HIS website. He owns the information. It's protected by a number of laws and rights, and basically what Norton is doing is borderline illegal. Now we all know the burocracy of these types of things, so it's obviously going to be around for awhile. But what gives you the right to deface someone elses work and only derive the benefits? Do you not care about the work they put into it? Are you not interested in seeing them duely compensated? Without advertising, the internet would be a sad place. And while I agree there are many forms of advertising that are wholey greedy and innapropriate, a TARGETED text ad (like AdSense) is NOTHING but HELPFUL to the average user.

"Earlier someone likened NIS to mailbox that strips out ads from magazines, well really it's more like getting a magazine home and then cutting the ads out. It's your magazine and you can do what you want with it."

Woh, hold on now. Someone likened it to something which stripped the ads from magazines, because in theory, that's exactly what it does. See, if you (or anyone else) were to cut ads out of magazines, that's fine. It is you're magazine, you're right. But it's your magazine BECAUSE YOU PAID FOR IT. Many informative content writers and publishers just barely get by with hosting fees from the revenue they get from advertising. In fact, there are many services online where once you pay for them, the ads disapear, but they still offer the free information on the basis of ads for those who don't wish to pay. They give you the choice.

"Yes, I know it does it by default, but that's a good thing for people who might not turn it on, now they too can enjoy the internet the way it was meant to be, adfree."

The Internet was arguably ment to be ad-free, I'll give that to you. But what the internet has evolved into NO ONE could have expected. The internet as it is now, is 1,000 times the value of what an ad-free internet would look like, and there are very few who would argue that.

"I applaud Norton for helping clean the internet of ads, NO ONE wants them, and given the choice--and donít fool yourself, we always will have the choice--everyone will use the internet without them."

No one wants them? That's a serious claim. No one wants Pop-ups, now that I can agree with. But targeted advertising? It's the users choice whether he looks at the content, or notices a banner. It's NOT the users choice to remove the banner from the page. From this thread it's been found that there are some pretty simple ways to remove this blocking, and I'm sure hosts in the future will have pre-installed software to start counter-acting these programs.

You're talking about peoples lives, lively hoods, entire companys. Businesses. Small, large. You're talking about affecting the way people SEARCH for goods, the way people find what they are looking for. The way the internet works. The way all this information is streamed to us. Ads (for the most part, minus interstitials and pops) are nothing but helpful. People who have this anti-ad attitude are putting themselves above everyone else, and I personally think it's a very arrogant stance to take. Please, don't take this as a personal attack, I mean it not towards you, but it's a very serious issue. It's not just about a banner, it's a staple in the world-wide economy. It won't be moved, and in my opinion, it shouldn't be moved. For the few who are INSISTANT on having a completely ad-free experience, there will always be a way, and that's a choice they can make (Just like KaZaA Lite is still around if you want to steal music), but in the end it will be a meaningless percentage.

fidibidabah




msg:550859
 4:11 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Note: Last post was a rant, this is my actual on-topic post ;)

I think many good points have been mentioned from many sides of the issue. The most obvious, to me, forgetting ethical/moral and everything else that is meaningless in business, is how blantently illegal this is.

The key is that it happens unknowingly for the average user. Defacing data that is protected by every intelectual property, copyright, and first-ammendment-based law.. worse yet defacing it on the behalf of some one else, and then WITHOUT that persons knowlege. It's almost sick.

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whisper"

ebizcamp




msg:550860
 5:14 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Agree with fidibidabah.

Hardly to say users are not interested in target ads (AdSense/Amazon Keywords Ads or something like that). Norton deprives users' rights to view target ads (They are not annoying pop-ups).

jb_davis




msg:550861
 5:23 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Then answer me this -- I have never bought anything online because I looked at an advertisement. The only things I have purchased I was actively looking for; I didn't just chance upon an ad and say "Wow, I want that!Ē If there is some product I want, I probably already know where to get it, and if I don't I know how to find out. So why should I still see the ads? They waste bandwidth and my time for zero return from me since I wonít ever be purchasing anything, and often when the ads are obnoxious I actively avoid the company and there products (those X10 camera things).

I also fail to see how it is copyright infringement. Since it's in your own home and you can do with it whatever you like. I have several websites saved on my HD for reference with a lot of useless stuff taken out, is that copyright infringement? It's no different than using tivo to skip commercials. Youíre getting all the show without the advertisers making any money, your "defacing" the broadcast by chopping it up and not watching it in its entirety. So do you have a case against them too?

jb_davis




msg:550862
 5:27 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Norton deprives users' rights to view target ads

They also have a right NOT to see the ads. I agree that Norton should have asked the users first, maybe in the setup wizard or after installing so the users would know. If anything they should make it MORE obvious that ad blocking is on. When given the clear choice, Iím sure that most people would still choose to enable it.

varya




msg:550863
 5:53 am on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Actually, surfers do NOT have the "right" to not view ads.

Or, more to the point, you do have the right to not view ads, which you may exercise by not surfing the net or by not turning on your computer. You may not exercise that right by altering the content you view.

The copyright owner of the website you are viewing, on the other hand, does have specific legal rights, which include display rights and the rights to derivative works, both of which rights are probably being violated by your ad-blocking software.

In addition, the website owner has has certain rights with respect to engaging in his business, rights which Norton is willfully disregarding.

jb_davis




msg:550864
 4:53 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's my choice. Firefox blocks all ads for me, and when I use a friends computer I am surprised at all the garbage they put up with on the net. I have converted most of my friends to firefox and the adblock plugin and they are all happier.

MatthewHSE




msg:550865
 5:49 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

You don't seem to realize that you don't own the websites you're viewing. What you see is not your choice, except by which sites you visit. What you see there is up to the site owner, who deserves to be compensated for his efforts and expenses. To refuse to view the ads is extremely selfish and disregards the right of the website owner to make a living.

Taking a website's content without viewing its ads is, in effect, stealing. You're getting the content without paying for it. Whether or not you buy from ads is irrelevant. Ads on a website are part of the intended conditions of use.

If you want a book, it's definitely illegal to simply take it from the bookshop because, after all, why should you pay for it? A website is no different. If you take the content without payment, you're stealing from the site owner.

Besides which, the Internet as we know it today would be impossible without advertising. Expecting to get a free ride is inconsiderate.

And with all that said, I do occasionally use the FireFox "Nuke Anything" extension to get rid of ads I find downright offensive. But I have never taken steps to completely avoid seeing banners altogether. <edit>Note that "Nuke Anything" won't work except for one page load at a time. So by the time you get to use it, you've seen the ad anyway.</edit>

Looking over this, I'm realizing that I've probably never used such strong language before in an online forum. But completely blocking ads really goes against every principle of fair play. I'm guessing, jb_davis, that you don't have a business website of your own. If you did, there's no way you'd advocate blocking ads. And if you succeed in getting everyone to block ads like you do, just get ready to watch many valuable sites go up in smoke.

[edited by: MatthewHSE at 6:40 pm (utc) on May 19, 2004]

fidibidabah




msg:550866
 5:53 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

"...but in the end it will be a meaningless percentage."

I hate having to quote MYSELF to prove my points.

While a very small percentage of internet users would opt to use this technology, it doesn't escape the fact that it's illegal. It will be procescuted the same way P2P filesharing was/is, and it will be pressed down into the dust from the scales like warez and music/movie stealing.

Once the big cats see the effects of this (and I'm willing to bet they already have), there will be action.

In the meantime, I will continue to use methods on all of my sites which circumvent the methods you use to slaughter and deface my property. Just for people like you, so the next time to try to pull some information off of a site I own, you will be forced to see the ads regardless of what program you run, and you will realize the eventuality of the situation, and maybe lose a little sleep.

Steal your information, steal your music, steal your movies, it's your choice. The majority of users, however, are not illethical and immoral, unless they are egged on by a major company such as Norton. It's sad that people are so easily persuaded without knowing the facts.

willamowius




msg:550867
 6:25 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

> Taking a website's content without viewing its ads is, in effect, stealing.
>[..]
> And with all that said, I do occasionally use the FireFox "Nuke Anything" extension to get rid of ads I find downright offensive.

So in effect you decide when you find "stealing" ok.

There are 2 clear positions:
1.) Whoever views a site has to put up with whatever the siteower chooses (including pop-ups, dialer etc.). He owns the site he gets to decide.

2.) It's the users screen and he decides what portion of the web he wants to see. He tries not to view what offens him.

I guess most people tend towards position 2. It's just a continuum what they feel offended by.

The final solution will be that we have to pay directly for what we want to use. Indirect payment might be more convenient for a while, but the site owner has to put up with the risk.

MatthewHSE




msg:550868
 6:38 pm on May 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

So in effect you decide when you find "stealing" ok.

Note that, by using the "Nuke Anything" extension, I still see the ad every time I visit that page. It's only after seeing it that I have the opportunity to use that feature, after all. It's not like the Ad Blocking extension that blocks everything, all the time. Totally different concept.

jb_davis




msg:550869
 1:23 am on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I will continue to use methods on all of my sites which circumvent the methods you use to slaughter and deface my property. Just for people like you, so the next time to try to pull some information off of a site I own, you will be forced to see the ads regardless of what program you run, and you will realize the eventuality of the situation, and maybe lose a little sleep.

- Your site may be your property, and I am not allowed to make money from it, or copy it and use it on the internet as my own, but itís my screen, my computer, my internet connection, and my choice as to how I use and view your site.

Iím confident that adblocking will only get stronger and its use will only spread. And I hope you were joking about p2p being ground into the dust. P2p use is up and it's never been easier to strike back at the broken copyright system.

Maybe what we are doing is violating copyright law, I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but the whole copyright system is corrupt and many of us consider it invalid and therefore not to be followed.

There will be no methods to fully circumvent ad block methods, and I am confident that my current solution is undefeatable with current technology. And if someone does find a way, it will take me a fraction of the time to filter it out than it took to produce it. It's a useless effort to force ads onto people that have taken such great lengths not to see them.

europeforvisitors




msg:550870
 4:17 am on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

As others have said, ad blocking will be defeated by technical means if it becomes a widespread problem. Either that, or users won't be able to view pages without seeing the ads, in which case most users will choose not to use ad blockers.

jb_davis




msg:550871
 5:31 am on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's another technical arms race, one side will be ahead for a while then advancements will be made for the other side, and on and on.

varya




msg:550872
 6:53 am on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

It is not a race that you, the surfer, can win.

I can't afford to give you my content for free. You have to pay for it if you want it, one way or another.

Either you can view ads while viewing my content, or you can pay for access.

There's no world where you take what you want because "information wants to be free" and I foot the bill for it.

Push this hard enough and the entire net will become pay-for-access.

And then you'll probably still be stuck with ads, cause it'll be in the TOS you sign when you join the Microamerigooglehoo Content Network.

MatthewHSE




msg:550873
 12:47 pm on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Maybe what we are doing is violating copyright law, I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but the whole copyright system is corrupt and many of us consider it invalid and therefore not to be followed.

If you keep that up, one day you'll find that even a corrupt system can deal out pretty severe penalties if you violate it. Anyway, copyright isn't about a legal system or a set of laws; it's about the inherent right of the individual to have his work protected and to profit from it. Even if you can't resepct the system, you need to at least respect the undeniable rights of other people in this area.

jb_davis




msg:550874
 4:16 pm on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

You're right in that it is a race that can't be won, by either side. Whatever your "content" is I will always have alternative providers, or alternative avenues for obtaining YOUR content.

Catalyst




msg:550875
 4:19 pm on May 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

IMO Popup blockers are just fine.

Stripping TEXT, CONTENT, REGULAR PAGE GRAPHICS THAT ARE NOT ADS, ESSENTIAL SITE NAVIGATION and the very SOURCE CODE from pages like Norton does is unnecessary and should be a copyright issue.

Some of you are saying you don't want any ads in the way. What about all the customers that go to site they WANT to buy from and they can't even see the links or the pictures and end up calling tech support or emailing the site owner to find out what's wrong with the site. They have no idea Norton is blocking content or how to turn it off. It just is not right!

MyWay.com, the Washington Post and lots of other BIG sites have had to add "if our site does not display right or you see big blank spaces, please disable Norton blah, blah blah."

Why do they take up precious real estate to do this? Because it's affecting alot of people and causing lots of tech support calls from surfers who WANT to view the content and CAN'T and DON'T KNOW WHY.

Sorry for shouting!
Linda

jb_davis




msg:550876
 12:11 am on May 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I already said I agree with you on the default blocking of ads by NIS, I don't like programs on my computer doing things without asking first. It should be made clear it will be doing that in the install or the configuration. Given the choice, people will still turn it on, but then they would know it was happening.

mykel79




msg:550877
 12:23 pm on May 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm curious jb_davis - what exactly do you do for a living? Do you run a site? Do you have any ads on it or try to sell something?

This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 100 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved