| This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: 100 ( [1] 2 3 4 ) > > |
|
Norton Internet Security includes Personal Firewall - PF blocks everything!
|
Gabor
#:550787
| 6:10 pm on Jan. 27, 2004 (utc 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
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a
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!
|
isitreal
#:550788
| 8:15 pm on Jan. 27, 2004 (utc 0) |
I haven't seen a banner ad in 4 years, except when I visit friends, right before I install adsubtract for them. All Norton is doing is getting on the bandwagon, a little late. If banner ads are part of your business plan you might think of changing the plan, personally I can't stand banners, although normal text ads are fine, sometimes I even click them.... like on theregister.com for example.
|
MatthewHSE
#:550789
| 2:23 am on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
Fortunately not many people are using banner-stoppers yet. Personally, (and no offense to isitreal) I think it's a little on the selfish side to use a site while deliberately blocking their banners. They have to make up costs somehow. What's worse is that many users of Norton Internet Security are blocking banners without even knowing it. I just recently had an advertiser who wanted to know why her banner wasn't showing on our site. Turns out Norton was blocking all images of popular banner sizes, and she didn't even have a clue it was happening. It's one thing to offer a banner-stopper, I guess. But it shouldn't be so integrated into another program that users don't even realize it's turned on.
|
keyplyr
#:550790
| 2:32 am on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
That's fine, this is in my htaccess:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Blocked\ by\ Norton [NC,OR]
|
isitreal
#:550791
| 6:29 pm on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
I'd say it's probably not true any longer that not too many people are using banner blocking if Norton internet security is including that as a default, that's a very popular product, and almost all users never change the default settings, so if you're hoping this will go away you're probably going to be disappointed, since MacAffee will have to add that feature if they want to stay competitive. Not to mention banners are ugly, slow page loads, etc, and of course do all kinds of things most people might get annoyed at if they understood what was involved. Every person I have ever shown ad blocking software to has been absolutely thrilled, things like that take a while to spread, but given that in 2000 most people had no idea you could block ads, and today Norton IS comes with that installed default, that might give food for thought about that particular way of generating income for a site. Personally I'd never do that, but that's just me.
|
martinibuster
#:550792
| 6:50 pm on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
?
|
eWhisper
#:550793
| 7:02 pm on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
Banner ads are a necessity. Advertising drives many sites to continue to offer great content. If users stop seeing banner ads, then sites will have to look for other ways to get revenue, or block those users from visiting their site. Many sites already have checks for flash enabled/disabled by the browser and serve ads based on user allows. This is good technology as the ad is still served, but within the user preference. I think we'll start seeing soon some major sites that block users who block banner ads. Either that, or sites are going to start renaming their ads and directories to start fooling norton/ad blocking software into thinking its a regular image on the site and thus it'll be allowed.
|
Gabor
#:550794
| 11:45 pm on Jan. 28, 2004 (utc 0) |
Ads are a necessity indeed for large content sites. If everyone used banner ad blockers, who would pay for the bandwith?
One of my websites generates over 9 million impressions per month and it also has a section with large files - the banners keep the site free and provide income. You take that away and you drive my website off the Internet, or force me to charge for accessing the content. Regarding the banners being so annoying - maybe I received two or three complaints in more than 3 years about annoying banners, but I get several compliments daily.
I understand about popups and such, but blocking banner ads is not right.
Norton only cares about their bottom line and couldn't care less if many websites would not be viable because of them.
Right now Norton is stealing from my income and from the income of many other webmasters who run contant sites!
|
MatthewHSE
#:550795
| 1:34 am on Jan. 29, 2004 (utc 0) |
I have two areas for banner ads on my site; one 235x60 in my header and one 468x60 in the footer. Both banners are unobtrusive. Most of the banners in my rotation system are not animated, and those that are only have a couple of frames. My banners don't set cookies, don't try to force downloads, or anything scummy like that. They're just graphical links to sites that are likely to interest my visitors. I agree that some sites over-use banner ads, at least in my opinion. I can't stand those banners that flash ten times per second and when banners get in the way of content, I sometimes turn off images in my browser for a couple of pages. But on the whole, I consider banners a necessity, and properly used, helpful to the visitor. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and that free content has to have some price to it somewhere. if unobtrusive banners are that price, you're getting a lot for very little.
|
isitreal
#:550796
| 1:44 am on Jan. 29, 2004 (utc 0) |
Sorry, I should have been more clear, the ads that ad blocking software block are not normal images, they are ads that try to send back user data, set cookies etc, I think anyway, that's why I see normal text or image ads no matter what. It's the more invasive ads I'm talking about, those are the ones I wouldn't use, and that ad blocking software blocks. I guess there's just different ideas of what the web should do and what it shouldn't do, no big deal, there's room for everything on the web I think.
|
Jenstar
#:550797
| 2:10 am on Jan. 29, 2004 (utc 0) |
The main problem with Norton is that ad blocking is turned on by default. Many people don't even realize that they are affected by this "feature" at all, since it is automatically running. Users must go into the Norton options to turn off the ad blocking. Here are some other threads since this "feature" has been added (noticed here first back in October)
AdSense invisible to Norton Internet Security Users NAV 2004 & ad blocking
|
wayne
#:550798
| 2:08 pm on Feb. 18, 2004 (utc 0) |
The way I understand it, the blocking isn't just
happening with banners, but with text link also.
Even if you are using a regular affiliate link,
if the link includes certain words, the whole link
will be wiped out and a blank space will replace it.
Webmasters need to pay for their costs of keeping
up their website.
|
Catalyst
#:550799
| 5:09 pm on Feb. 18, 2004 (utc 0) |
I have been trying to spread the word about this in all the forums. but somehow missed this one. 1st, the title of this thread is wrong. Norton AV does not block, it's Norton Internet Security and also the Personal Firewall software that does it. This software is coming BUNDLED with many new computers and yes the default is set to BLOCK ADS, even though this is sold as a "security" product, not an ad blocker. It not only wipes out banners but EVEN your site logo and other regular images if they happen to be any of the standard banner sized images. It also deletes text link and STRIPS YOUR SOURCE CODE and can totally change the content of your page. When I say strips your source code, that's what I mean too.
Even if the user contacts you to find out why there are big blank spots on your site and no "buy" links... If you tell them to turn off the ad blocker and hit refresh the page still will not load properly. The code is stripped at the source. One company in one of the forums listed above almost has software finished that will prevent Norton from blocking your site. The other forum has links to contact the FTC and other places to complain basically for restriction of trade. Here it is. FTC Consumer Complaint Form: https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01 FTC site content Fair Trade Act 2002 Quote: Article 10 No monopolistic enterprises shall: directly or indirectly prevent any other enterprises from competing by unfair means; improperly set, maintain or change the price for goods or the remuneration for services; make a trading counterpart give preferential treatment without justification; or otherwise abuse its market power. There are a bunch of other good suggestions in the forum links above for anyone who wants to take action and try to find solutions or report this. HeHe, one guy even found a way to put Mcaffee messages behind all his links so if his links won't display, underneath it says "if you can't see the links then Norton IS is blocking content and won't let you access parts of this site. Please dump Norton and go buy McAffee and this page will load properly" or something to that effect. Linda [edited by: Drastic at 6:19 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2004]
[edit reason] no links to your own sites please [/edit]
|
Catalyst
#:550800
| 11:26 pm on Feb. 18, 2004 (utc 0) |
Well now my thread makes about as much sense with all the examples stripped out as an affiliate page after Norton strips it. If anyone else had done all the research and testing and made all the examples to help people see and understand this issue I would have linked elsewhere, but to my knowledge no one has.
Over 20 threads on other forums are using those examples and people are rallying and trying to come up with solutions because a pic is worth a thousand words and the examples help people understand the damage. Sorry I broke the rules, I was only trying to help!
|
creepychris
#:550801
| 4:17 am on Feb. 19, 2004 (utc 0) |
I'm not sure if Norton is still blocking Google Adsense, but it would be ironic since Google is blocking everybody else's popups. I always thought that that was a little but uncompetetive of Google. Yes, I was very happy when Google killed somebody else's popup when I was on their site, but now that the show is on the other foot and I am an adsense publisher . . .
|
amznVibe
#:550802
| 4:24 am on Feb. 19, 2004 (utc 0) |
Norton did not write their personal firewall.
It's based on At-Guard which I still use to this day, and it blocks adsense (and I like it that way). If Norton stopped blocking adsense by default, all that would have to be done is a third party ruleset to import. There will be plenty of those hosted by everyone that makes popup blockers. Adsense can even be blocked by using the HOSTS file which is a core part of Windows, and it's incredibly easy.
|
nativenewyorker
#:550803
| 6:30 am on Feb. 19, 2004 (utc 0) |
Gabor said: | Right now Norton is stealing from my income and from the income of many other webmasters who run contant sites! |
|
It is amazing how many websites promote software that erase cookies and block ads. These webmasters go after one sale by promoting this type of software and risk losing dozens of future sales from repeat visitors. Don't they realize that they are only hurting themselves by doing this?
|
bscm
#:550804
| 5:11 am on Feb. 20, 2004 (utc 0) |
For some weeks I have been checking some affiliate boards checking for info related to this.
Finally yesterday I found a link to a software that prevents Norton and other ad blockers from blocking the ads. I tried it for 30 minutes and I bought it, it works great. [edited by: Drastic at 4:35 pm (utc) on Feb. 20, 2004]
[edit reason] no urls please [/edit]
|
cyanweb
#:550805
| 11:08 am on Feb. 20, 2004 (utc 0) |
Can this sort of thing be ground for class action by webmaster owners and advertising companies as it is in fact "tampering with our sites" and changing it's intended appearance without our permission and is robbing us of revenues... Together the webmasters, webmistresses and advertising companies can class action against those interfering with our businesses? I mean - blocking pop up "intrusive" advertising is one thing - but "blocking all 468x60 images" is another... making it a commercial enterprise to put other people out of business is illegal is it not?
|
MatthewHSE
#:550806
| 12:37 pm on Feb. 20, 2004 (utc 0) |
| making it a commercial enterprise to put other people out of business is illegal is it not? |
|
Actually, I think there would only be a case if it could be proven that Norton was attempting to create a monopoly of some sort. Simply offering a product or service, which happens to put someone out of business, is not illegal. I imagine a lot of carriage manufacturers went out of business when cars came along. Still, it's a shame that software can be provided on such a wide basis that blocks so much of the user's online experience without so much as their approval. I mean, do you know how many NIS users don't even realize they're missing something?
|
DaveAtIFG
#:550807
| 1:48 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
I loaded the trial version of Norton Internet Security 2004 with defaults and can confirm that it is indeed blocking banners and AdSense ads. So far, I've confirmed that it removes (not just blocks!) banner and text ads that are linked to any of the leading affiliate networks. It also removes any images that contain width="468 and height="60" attributes along with other common ad sizes. Although AdSense ads display, the links are disabled. For those who depend on affiliate sales or AdSense revenue, this is a SERIOUS problem that will become more serious as this product gains popularity. Norton Anti-Virus 2002 came bundled with a motherboard I bought a few years ago and I still use it, does the job very well, no reason to upgrade. But if Norton is now bundling NIS in the same manner, it's use and popularity can only increase.
|
willybfriendly
#:550808
| 2:29 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
My problem with Norton IS is that it is attacking an entire industry model. It is not just site owners that suffer when IS strips markup out of a page. This is a threat to those business that have affiliate programs also. And, there is no way to even track what kind of losses are being incurred. There is no "free" in life. Watch TV (at least stateside) and one is blasted by ads. Want ad-free TV - pay for it. Same with the web. I have no problem with pop-up blockers. Pop-ups (or worse, pop-unders) are just too intrusive, and they are using my system resources without my permission. Affiliate links (like CJ) can provide a necessary source of cash flow for small site owners, but IS will arbitrarily strip them from a page, leaving nothing but whitespace (or worse, causing the page to collapse into a jumbled mess). If I have a link on my site to a page offering purple widgets for sale, I would guess that my visitors want to find purple widgets for sale, not a blank page. With IS, they may find a blank page. This is akin to the Postal Service cutting pages out of a magazine before delivering it. It is unacceptable to me. I have slowly been replacing affiliate links on my sites as I am able to identify alternatives. It is a pain in the arse, and it will require time that I don't really have to change the model, but I do need that trickle of income to support the site. WBF
|
PCInk
#:550809
| 4:08 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
Reported in August 2003:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum81/1349.htm The biggest problem with it is that user do not necessarily know that the Firewall is doing this. The Firewall logo appears in the bottom right of the screen, surely advert blocking should be classed as seperate from the Firewall and have a seperate logo there. Alternatively, it could be a question offered to the user on first use of the program, if they want adverts to be blocked or not. The manual has a whole chapter devoted to the advert blocking and is very clear. But who reads manuals...?
|
cashmere
#:550810
| 5:23 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
"This is akin to the Postal Service cutting pages out of a magazine before delivering it. It is unacceptable to me." Not quite. It's more like buying a mailbox that automatically throws anything that says KMart into the trash, and removes special offers from statements. Or tears all the ads out of a magazine. But it seems wrong to modify web pages like that.
|
Catalyst
#:550811
| 6:25 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
I think it's similar to graffiti. It is defacing people's personal and business property. Someone on another forum said their atty told him you could get Norton on copyright violations if you made the affiliate links long with your own personal copy. He advised that there is a potential issue with copyright laws if the text links being removed were incorporated into the content of the site so as to make the pages incomprehensible by their removal. He said if publishers were to make a larger portion of the text part of the link itself, so that by removing the link, the blockers would also be removing large chunks of copyrighted content from the page, it's possible copyright laws could be enforced against the blockers. The blockers need to be smart enough to remove only advertising, not content. And I don't think they can do that at this point. They could then potentially be held liable for defacing the page, and violating copyright laws by removing copyrighted content without the author's permission. So instead of making the link "Click here to buy a Blue Widget", you'd make it "Blue Widgets have been around for years, and are highly coveted collector's items by many. The version made from pure silk is now selling for six times it's original asking price. To start your own collection of widgets, Click here to buy a Blue Widget, and discover how rewarding these collectibles can be." ============================= Another person said "My Attorney says this thing with Norton (and the parasites) sounds like a "Tortious interference with a beneficial contractural or economic relationship." ==============================
Another said "They could then potentially be held liable for defacing the page, and violating copyright laws by removing copyrighted content without the author's permission. Load up some suitable pages, then send a DCMA letter to Symantec AND their hosting providers - haulakh@speedera.com abuse@level3.com abuse@exodus.net Linda [edited by: eljefe3 at 8:19 pm (utc) on Feb. 22, 2004]
|
martinibuster
#:550812
| 6:38 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
Just a friendly heads-up: I agree that ad-blocking is misguided, this issue affects me too because it's removing potential revenue. However, calls to action against any company are against the tos. See item#26
| ...calls to action against any company or person will be removed. |
|
;)
|
skipfactor
#:550813
| 7:37 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
>>They could then potentially be held liable for defacing the page, and violating copyright laws by removing copyrighted content without the author's permission. What's your attorney's number? I'm going to sue Netscape for doing exactly what he's just described.
|
Even_Steven
#:550814
| 10:35 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
Norton AntiSpam 2004 is also blocking ads. I installed it because I wanted to automate the deletion of spam e-mail, since I get so many of it. I was aware that it also blocks ads, but I was disappointed to see that the ad blocker is turned on by default. The thing is that AntiSpam 2004 is probably the first spam blocker to be sold in discount retail stores nationwide (WalMart, K-Mart, Target, etc.) It used to be you had to go to a software store or buy it online. Now all of rural America can get one too. But I think that the ad-blocker industry can be put out of business if all publishers and media companies stopped using pop-ups. I believe Pop-ups is what is fueling the ad-blocking industry. Everyone hates pop-ups, but most people seem to tolerate ad banners and text ads.
|
kila_m
#:550815
| 11:32 pm on Feb. 21, 2004 (utc 0) |
I think if the advertising networks registered their domain names as trademarks then they could sue Norton for misappropriate use of a trademark etc - IANAL.
|
ronin
#:550816
| 3:59 pm on Feb. 22, 2004 (utc 0) |
| My problem with Norton IS is that it is attacking an entire industry model. |
|
I couldn't agree more. The reason why the vast majority of information resources on the web are free is because they are supported by advertising. I'm not against readers having the choice: a) subscribe
b) see adverts but stripping the adverts without being willing to pay to read the content oneself is just selfish.
|
| This 100 message thread spans 4 pages: 100 ( [1] 2 3 4 ) > > |
