Some of the frame busters also break the AdSense frame, which can cause problems with the AdSense ad units repeatedly refreshing. This can be considered to be false impressions, so be sure to check before you unleash the script you are using on your entire site ;)
Jen, wouldn't the ONLOAD() version be best then as it busts the frame before the rest of the page displays?
HI Renee: I hand't considered that:
My simple blocker did STOPPED busting AJ's frame! I turned J & JS right back on.
Apparently my blocker acts as a script even thought my code doesn't specifically call one.
I presume those disabling Java and JS are somewhat more sophisticated than usual, and presumably
able to see that a site is being framed. Exceptions always apply, I could be wrong. -Larry
"It's way less than 20%..."
How did you come to this number? I have direct experience where I accidentally excluded the "noscript" code for fastclick on a monday and earnings was about 95 for the day. when I included the noscript code, earnings for the following Monday was 135 for a day! that's definitely more than 25%. It's too bad google does not have a noscript equivalent of their adsense code.
the reason that framed pages show the default blue and white adsense is because you did not check the 'using adsense on a framed page' box when you generated your adsense script.
the <body onload= is not a script but onload is a java-specific attribute and calls up the java.
OK. I apparently called a Java function without really knowing it, it worked nicely BTW.
For the sake of my frame buster only, I would like some decent estimate of the percentage of
people with this particular feature disabled, no matter what you call it.
I want to think the numbers are small, especially if most users couldn't turn off J or JS
even if they even wanted to. I could be very wrong. Opinions / numbers anyone? - Larry
Now 4% of users not being able to use your site at all, would be significant. But 4% of users not being busted out of frames in the event that they came from AskJeeves or whatever, is not worth losing sleep over IMO.
Somehow I missed that. IF its only 4% not busting out of AJ (for example) I couldn't care less.
AJ maybe sends me 2 uniques a day out of about 800 to 1000. So, lets say 60 per month.
2 or 3 AJ visitors in a month don't bust out of the frame. Not a concern.
>>IF its only 4% not busting out of AJ
what if it was 20-25%? would it make a difference?
this is very easy to verify this. have 2 counters - one is <img> based, and another that is <jscript> based.
True, but come on - you simply reported different numbers of banners served on 2 different days. That is not a remotely valid test, so I'll stick with SitePoint's numbers until something better comes along.
Rechecking the numbers, I see that SitePoint was reporting stats calculated by TheCounter.com. That site has a "Global Stats" link on their homepage that leads to all kinds of useful data on user preferences.
>>True, but come on - you simply reported different numbers of banners served on 2 different days.
i do agree that it was an unscientific proof but i believe it to be true. if i believed the numbers (sitepoints) you quoted, i would never have bothered to include the noscript code and i would have lost out on almost $45 per day from fastclick! what i'm afraid is that other webmasters might believe in your numbers and be unaware of significant economic consequences. I trust my direct experience rather than something i just read. you should try it sometime.
I like this script and use it on my popular pages....will soon go site wide with it.
if (parent.frames.length > 0) top.location.replace(document.location); // Escape from any referring site's frame, but preserve one-click "Back". --></script>
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 44 ( 1  ) |