Jenstar
msg:1424704 | 9:46 pm on May 16, 2005 (gmt 0) |
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 ;)
|
incrediBILL
msg:1424705 | 9:54 pm on May 16, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Jen, wouldn't the ONLOAD() version be best then as it busts the frame before the rest of the page displays?
|
larryhatch
msg:1424706 | 10:00 pm on May 16, 2005 (gmt 0) |
HI Renee: I hand't considered that:
" of course framebuster works only if the user has javascript on. The good part is that neither does adsense work. however, if the user's javascript is off, the scraper will continue to be able to frame your site" I'm using Firefox 1.0 I turned off both Java and Javascript temporarily as a test. 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
|
renee
msg:1424707 | 2:32 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
"It's way less than 20%..." jomaxx, 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.
|
Reid
msg:1424708 | 4:54 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
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.
|
jomaxx
msg:1424709 | 5:49 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
onLoad is Javascript (not Java), even though it's not explicitly contained within script tags. As for the stats, according to SitePoint Javascript was enabled in 96% of browsers as of last year. I find this easy to believe for several reasons: Lots of sites require Javascript in order to function; there's not much benefit to disabling Javascript, unlike Java for example; and few Explorer users could figure out how to disable it even if they wanted to.
|
larryhatch
msg:1424710 | 6:05 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
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
|
jomaxx
msg:1424711 | 6:22 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Did you read the previous post? 96% of users have Javascript enabled and thus 4% have it disabled, according to SitePoint's methodology. 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.
|
larryhatch
msg:1424712 | 7:16 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
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. I also messed up java vs javascript. I am forever confusing them, sorry! -Larry
|
niki_man
msg:1424713 | 11:01 am on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
interesting
|
renee
msg:1424714 | 3:58 pm on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
>>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.
|
jomaxx
msg:1424715 | 4:17 pm on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
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.
|
renee
msg:1424716 | 4:43 pm on May 17, 2005 (gmt 0) |
>>True, but come on - you simply reported different numbers of banners served on 2 different days. jomaxx, 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.
|
ann
msg:1424717 | 8:20 pm on May 23, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I like this script and use it on my popular pages....will soon go site wide with it. <script language="JavaScript1.1" type="text/JavaScript"><!-- // hide from old browsers
if (parent.frames.length > 0) top.location.replace(document.location); // Escape from any referring site's frame, but preserve one-click "Back". --></script> Ann
|
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 44 ( 1 [2] ) |
|
|
