Web pages Infested by mouse hover pop-ups

[Stephen Tashiro]

Is there some recent change in webpages or web browsers that is creating more and more places on a page where a pop-up appears when the mouse cursor hovers over a spot?

Lately (the past few months) there is an infestation of pop-ups that appear on web pages (using Firefox). I don't pay particular attention to where the mouse cursor is when I'm reading something on a page and I find this trend irritating. For example, on Wikipedia pages, I get pop-ups that are supposed to be helpful notes when the pointer hovers over a link. I don't want this feature and it only starting happening recently.

[Yonak Hawkins]

Stephen, these are most aggravating. If you find a way to stop them from happening I'd sure like to know.

[Jim Koepke]

Some of my browsing habits have been changed because of this 'feature.'

Usually setting the cursor to the left side of the window avoids these things on most sites.

Some browsers drop the cursor when using the up and down arrows to navigate a page. One of my browsers doesn't and that is how my setting the cursor to the left was started. Soon it was noticed there weren't all the annoying pop ups.

The ones that drive me to distraction or the ones with an ad staying in place when you scroll but then flickers violently if one of the ads that moves with the scrolling is under it. This only happens on a few sites.

jtk

[glenn bradley]

I'm one of those people who can't believe some folks pay for cable and then put up with commercials too. I simply state this so you can gauge my acceptance of unsolicited information of ANY kind. I have used Ad Block Plus for so long that I am literally startled when I use a computer that doesn't have it. The torrent of undesired garbage one has to wade through to use some services just sends me elsewhere.

I just can't bring myself to reward bad practices in business with my money or my time :). I'm not saying there should be no advertising; companies have to compete, I am just fairly selective. There is no website that is the ONLY place I can get info on a such-and-such. I give my time and money to those who conduct themselves well. I also omit Pinterest results when I search because it is a pox upon valid search results that none should abide. I could go on but, even a wind-bag like me has limits :D

[Roy Petersen]

On Wikipedia, those appear to be "page previews" (if that's what you refer to there), and can be turned off. Allow one to open, and look for the small gear icon on the popup window. Click that, and you should be able to disable that.

[Stephen Tashiro]

On Wikipedia, those appear to be "page previews" (if that's what you refer to there), and can be turned off. Allow one to open, and look for the small gear icon on the popup window. Click that, and you should be able to disable that.

Thank you for that advice. It works.

[Simon MacGowen]

On Wikipedia, those appear to be "page previews" (if that's what you refer to there), and can be turned off. Allow one to open, and look for the small gear icon on the popup window. Click that, and you should be able to disable that.

You guys read Wiki?

About the popup windows, they are indeed a nuisance. Just another proof that webpage owners have little clues how their visitors actually think about web designs. The trend, like it or not, is merchants are moving away from transactional to interactive web pages.

Simon

[Bob Bouis]

I like to highlight text as I read so I can keep my place while scrolling or through distractions.

You can imagine how that works these days.

There are browser addons that let you disable the scripts on websites that power these "features" [and lots of others], but you have to be a super duper power user to make them work well and even then it's probably more trouble than it's worth.

[Jim Becker]

Disabling scripts globally can also render many websites unusable. Part of the challenge here is that there are "good popups" and "bad popups". Eliminating one without disabling the other is often difficult. Even very intelligent browser add-ins miss the mark on this sometimes.

[Chuck Wintle]

Is there some recent change in webpages or web browsers that is creating more and more places on a page where a pop-up appears when the mouse cursor hovers over a spot?

Lately (the past few months) there is an infestation of pop-ups that appear on web pages (using Firefox). I don't pay particular attention to where the mouse cursor is when I'm reading something on a page and I find this trend irritating. For example, on Wikipedia pages, I get pop-ups that are supposed to be helpful notes when the pointer hovers over a link. I don't want this feature and it only starting happening recently.
If you use firefox then try the add in adblocker, i use it and i am not bothered by popups.

[Keith Outten]

Just for your information because of ad blocking software free access to SawMill Creek will cease to exist in the coming months. If you don't see our advertisers banners you certainly won't be clicking on them to visit their web sites and that revenue will be lost forever soon. I am sharing this information so that I can say I warned everyone when we convert to a subscription based web site.

[Bryan Lisowski]

Keith, so you are saying that unless you become a contributor access to this site will not be available?

[Pat Barry]

Subscription cost will have to be higher than minimum required now for Contributor status. Curious to see how much.

[Roy Petersen]

when we convert to a subscription based web site.
An unfortunate decision, and one that will cause me to stop contributing (since it would be forced) and go elsewhere.
Though I understand the need to be able to profit in order to run servers, I'm not a fan of subscription only sites.
No great loss, I'm sure, but there you have it.

[Simon MacGowen]

Subscription cost will have to be higher than minimum required now for Contributor status. Curious to see how much.

Why do the subscription fee and the current contribution amount (assuming there is indeed a minimum) have any relationship with each other?

Simon

[Keith Outten]

Unless I can find another source of revenue to replace what we will lose The Creek will become a subscription based Community. Visitor access will be the first to be removed, probably at the same time we convert to Xenforo which won't be much longer. Our costs will decrease over a period of time when we eliminate visitor access. Our bandwidth consumption will drop right away and we won't need to purchase more expensive servers and other network hardware in the future. Visitors consume more of our resources than Members do, they always have.

It's really not about profit its about paying our bills. We have to have the necessary revenue to pay for bandwidth, software, new servers, a server administrator, etc. A web site of this magnitude is not to be confused with what it costs to operate a simple web page or even a medium size web site for a company.

Nothing is free, nor can I support this Community from my own pocket which is what I did for the first few years. The change in costs for an annual subscription won't change much from what we ask for today. I set the 50 cents per month donation at that rate in order to assure that even a child could afford to be a Contributor based on their allowance but I assumed that more people would donate. Most people offer a higher donation than the minimum and that is always appreciated. Even so remember that we have to pay state and federal taxes plus the percentage that PayPal gets so we don't receive much of the 50 cents that some people donate now.

I am pretty sure that a reduction in advertising support will effect a large number of web sites and communities in time. We are just one of a large percentage of web sites that operate either totally or through partial advertising assistance. We are operating now from funds saved last year, I prepay the majority of our bills annually so what we collect this year will take care of us in 2019. If we don't collect enough money to support our minimum costs we will cease to exist, but you will all know well in advance.

[Roy Petersen]

Unless I can find another source of revenue to replace what we will lose The Creek will become a subscription based Community.Have you heard of "paywall" scripts? News sites use them, some better than others. You visit with an ad blocker on, and it will pop up an interstitial page/popup that blocks viewing it and tells you to either shut it off or pay something for access. Upside is, no free ride. Downside is, search engine bots may also get thwarted.

I'd say that's a viable alternative to look into rather than shut off all public access, especially when it's more likely a visitor than a regular member clicking on ads (though from what I've read it's impressions and not clicks behind the revenue).

[Pat Barry]

Why do the subscription fee and the current contribution amount (assuming there is indeed a minimum) have any relationship with each other?

Simon
As ad revenue drops, subscription costs will need to increase to make up the difference unless: the site is already making tons of money and the reduced income from lost ad revenue isn't unacceptable to management; or the site makes operating cost reductions to offset the lost revenue. Simple cash flow problem.

[Jim Becker]

An unfortunate decision, and one that will cause me to stop contributing (since it would be forced) and go elsewhere.
Though I understand the need to be able to profit in order to run servers, I'm not a fan of subscription only sites.
No great loss, I'm sure, but there you have it.
This isn't about profit...it's about defraying cost. Large forum communities like this require infrastructure that has to be refreshed every few years and the bandwidth consumed isn't inexpensive. Advertising payed a large amount of this in the past, but that model no longer generates what it used to. This is not unique to SMC, either...it's hitting many kinds of content on the Internet at this point and is the reason why more and more sites are requiring subscriptions. It's the only way to stay online.

[Simon MacGowen]

As ad revenue drops, subscription costs will need to increase to make up the difference unless: the site is already making tons of money and the reduced income from lost ad revenue isn't unacceptable to management; or the site makes operating cost reductions to offset the lost revenue. Simple cash flow problem.
Your analysis about increasing subscription costs (relative to contribution rates) would be correct if the site were already subscription-based. But it is not and therefore it is not a simple cash flow issue as you described it.

Simon

[Pat Barry]

Why do the subscription fee and the current contribution amount (assuming there is indeed a minimum) have any relationship with each other?

Simon
Its not that complicated. Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.
Eliminate the ad revenue from the equation and substitute subscription fees for contributions and that new income source must match the nagnitude of the old one or you lose money. Since it is apparent that contributions themselves won't be enough it only stands to reason tjat the subscription cost will be higher than the current minimun contribution expectation. Its not that complicated.

[Simon MacGowen]

Its not that complicated. Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.
Eliminate the ad revenue from the equation and substitute subscription fees for contributions and that new income source must match the nagnitude of the old one or you lose money. Since it is apparent that contributions themselves won't be enough it only stands to reason tjat the subscription cost will be higher than the current minimun contribution expectation. Its not that complicated.

Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.

Let's use your income formula for the moment (which is incomplete). You made an assumption that I am sure is going to be invalidated when the subscription model becomes effective: the to-be-introduced subscription model works the same as the current contribution model except for the dollar amount. If that indeed was the case, why not just change the min. contribution amount?

The reason for the subscription model is to make the "contribution" mandatory and the effect of the switch is unknown until it is implemented. Setting the subscription fee is more than adding x dollars to the current contribution amount. You have to estimate the number of subscribers at different levels of subscription fees. You also have to plan for some of the current contributors who no longer want to be part of the subscription membership which will be a loss of revenue from the current baseline.

Then, if people are not contributing at the current min. contribution amount, why do you think people would be subscribing when the fee is even higher than the current min. amount?

There are many questions that need to be addressed when you switch from one revenue model to another (the revenue streams also have to be studied), and yours falls short of the usual standards required of a proper business analysis.

Simon

[Ole Anderson]

I tend to agree with Roy. Warn users with an active adblocker to disable it in order to have access. I see a similar warning on many other sites. No big deal. And I have never had an annoying ad pop up on the creek even before using the blocker. I use AdBlock but have it disabled for SMC. Very easy to do. Do it once and it remembers.

My advice? Install AdBlock, then go to the SMC page, LEFT click on the AdBlock icon and choose "Don't run on pages on this site". There you go. So far I have 574,000 blocked ads. I use Chrome, not sure how it works on other browsers. I do use it on my iPhone with Safari also.

[Pat Barry]

Ad revenue plus contributions equals income.

Let's use your income formula for the moment (which is incomplete). You made an assumption that I am sure is going to be invalidated when the subscription model becomes effective: the to-be-introduced subscription model works the same as the current contribution model except for the dollar amount. If that indeed was the case, why not just change the min. contribution amount?

The reason for the subscription model is to make the "contribution" mandatory and the effect of the switch is unknown until it is implemented. Setting the subscription fee is more than adding x dollars to the current contribution amount. You have to estimate the number of subscribers at different levels of subscription fees. You also have to plan for some of the current contributors who no longer want to be part of the subscription membership which will be a loss of revenue from the current baseline.

Then, if people are not contributing at the current min. contribution amount, why do you think people would be subscribing when the fee is even higher than the current min. amount?

There are many questions that need to be addressed when you switch from one revenue model to another (the revenue streams also have to be studied), and yours falls short of the usual standards required of a proper business analysis.

Simon
So, you agree with me then. Thanks

[Simon MacGowen]

My advice? Install AdBlock, then go to the SMC page, LEFT click on the AdBlock icon and choose "Don't run on pages on this site". There you go. So far I have 574,000 blocked ads. I use Chrome, not sure how it works on other browsers. I do use it on my iPhone with Safari also.

More sites now request you to whitelist them when they detect you are using an adblock or the like. I found that some sites block you when you visit them, but if you exit and revisit their pages (without changing your adblock settings), you are free to roam. I don't know if it is a design feature of theirs or it is a technical miss.

Simon

[Carlos Alvarez]

Does anyone expect that new people will subscribe if they can't view the content first and see that it's of value? Or will there be a trial sub option? Otherwise I can't imagine why anyone new would ever subscribe.

[Simon MacGowen]

So, you agree with me then. Thanks

What did you drink this morning?

Simon

[Pat Barry]

What did you drink this morning?

Simon
So, you actually think, with your economic model, that the subscription price will be LOWER than the current requested contribution? I doubt it. Why not become a Contributor? Why feel entitled to voice opinions, use the site regularly, block ads with your ad blocker software, and then not help out financially?

[Carlos Alvarez]

It was already noted that visitors consume the MOST amount of resources. IE, they cost the most. And that they cost more than is being generated from their ad revenue. Therefore, WE subscribers are subsidizing the visitors. Therefore, it should require less income from subscribers to run the site when the visitor traffic is gone.

[Simon MacGowen]

So, you actually think, with your economic model, that the subscription price will be LOWER than the current requested contribution? I doubt it. Why not become a Contributor? Why feel entitled to voice opinions, use the site regularly, block ads with your ad blocker software, and then not help out financially?

You are mixing up two different issues in your reply but that is ok, or at least it is better than your last seemingly unhinged response.

First, I said different levels of subscription fees and no where in any of my posts did I suggest that the sub. fee should be lower or higher. You are the one who suggested that it should be higher, and I was curious to find out the rationale behind your suggestion. I thought you had some economic footing or data to make such a statement, as I do not look at the price setting as simple as you made it out to be. Yours pretended it to be a simple addition/subtraction exercise. It might work that way if we were talking about a monopoly or government service where alternatives or real competition doesn't exist.

As for your second point, the answers vary depending on the users -- members or contributors -- and I wonder if there is just one set of reasons.

Simon

[Rob Damon]

If the site software can't detect between a non-paying member and a paying member that are both just browsing without logging in, how can you be sure that it is visitors consuming the bandwidth?

I contribution a chunk of money a few years ago not realizing that it did would not contribute for future years (i.e. $50 divided by $6/year wouldn't pay you up for 8 years. Yes my bad for not reading.)

But even though I was a paid member, I never logged into the site unless there was a picture I wanted to view closer up or I wanted to reply to some post. I would guess that 98% of the time I view this site (and all other woodworking sites) I do not log in therefore I am counted at being a "visitor" consuming bandwidth, correct?

I also understood that as a contributing member you could manage not viewing ads. So until the advent of Ad-blocking software, all visitors had to view the ads.

For the record I do not use ad-blocking software ever. If it is a free site, that is the price of admission.

Most of the target ads on this site are useless to me. I see them but I am not enticed to click on them. I have bought from LV, Grizzly and Wixey but that was when I was looking for something particular and normally came through a Bing or Google search page. I wonder how many other folks do the same thing. Seeing the Johnson Plastics, Grizzly Industrial, Trotec Laser, Lee Valley, Vectric, Laguna Tools, Felder Group USA, Wixey, Kern Laser, SCMGROUP, Delvie's Plastics, Robust Lathes ads or the car and other ad-choice ads don't bother me, but I have no need to click on them. New visitors would be more likely to I would imagine.

The question is, is it just a matter of clicking on the banner ads that generate the revenue stream or do the follow-up with actual purchases from the site you click off to?

If it is just a matter of clicking on the banners I would be more than happy to click on five or ten per visit here, just to add to the revenue stream.

[Carlos Alvarez]

If the site software can't detect between a non-paying member and a paying member that are both just browsing without logging in, how can you be sure that it is visitors consuming the bandwidth?


Cookies can track people without logging in. Also, most people don't log out and back in, they stay logged in. That's more secure and more convenient.



If it is just a matter of clicking on the banners I would be more than happy to click on five or ten per visit here, just to add to the revenue stream.

That's stealing from the advertiser. The Robin Hood approach isn't exactly ethical.

[Roy Petersen]

This isn't about profit...it's about defraying cost.
Took that a bit out of context there. Profit is any amount over $0. Whether or not it goes into running things (which I clearly mentioned) or is put in one's pocket is a different discussion. Here is the relevant comment again: "to be able to profit in order to run servers".

[Rob Damon]

I clear my cookies on a regular basis and never stay logged in to anything ever. My work computer browser clears them automatically upon exiting. I clear them after leaving any commercial site at home. (multiple times a day.) So unless the site is using super cookies they won't track. Also, by visiting the site through multiple devices and locations, it would be difficult to track unless you are google or facebook.

The point is if no one is clicking on the links or a just minimal number of people, then their method of advertising is faulty anyway and in the end it doesn't really matter. The point to buying banners is you want someone to see them and click on them and ultimately buy something from you. It doesn't matter if everyone that pays $6 or not pays it, sees the ad if it doesn't go any farther in the sales chain.

If you see the banner and click on it for real or for fake and don't buy anything ever from that vendor, it doesn't do any good for the vendor anyway.

Beside if I click on a banner even though I don't believe I will ever buy something from them and end up at their website, I may actually see something and learn something about that vendor and their product that I was not aware. In order to make a sale it takes three steps , see/visit/buy. By being honest as you say, I will only make it to step 1 and stop. By being dishonest, I make it to step 2.

As a vendor which would you rather your advertising dollars spent on a bunch of honest people that only make to step 1 or some dis-honest that make it to step 2? One way you are 2 steps away from a potential purchase and the other 1 step away from a purchase. The primary key is always to get the people to your website, that is half the battle.

[Carlos Alvarez]

I clear my cookies on a regular basis and never stay logged in to anything ever.

The number of people who waste their time doing that is under 1%, so it's not statistically significant. Also, there are plenty of ways to profile a browser beyond that, if desired. But a 1% change doesn't affect anything.

[Roy Petersen]

most people don't log out and back in, they stay logged in. That's more secure and more convenient.
Convenient, yes. More secure? Not so much. In fact, a logged in user can potentially (though very difficult and unlikely for this particular site; think cross site scripting or DNS poisoning) have a cookie hijacked and allow someone to gain access as him, but logging in and back out on each visit mitigates that possibility.
Just sayin'. :)

[Simon MacGowen]

Convenient, yes. More secure? Not so much. In fact, a logged in user can potentially (though very difficult and unlikely for this particular site; think cross site scripting or DNS poisoning) have a cookie hijacked and allow someone to gain access as him, but logging in and back out on each visit mitigates that possibility.
Just sayin'. :)

Out of business practice (in a shared computing workplace), I am among that 1% surfers, exiting a site once done and clearing the cookies and browser history after each session. Everyone in the office is supposed to do the same, though some don't leaving their browsing/download history wide open. We also use a cleaner program to recover space etc.

Simon

[Curt Harms]

If you use firefox then try the add in adblocker, i use it and i am not bothered by popups.

In addition to an ad blocker I use NoScript, available only for Firefox AFAIK. It takes a little time to set up initially but it remembers preferences for each site. I was amazed at the number of scripts running when viewing a page like espn.com, cnn.com and other 'mainstream' sites. I can block most of those scripts and the site still works for me. It may not work so well for the trackers and other snoops though;). I don't mind ads, the bills gotta be paid but some are rather obnoxious and sometimes if the ad server is having an off day, it hangs the page.

[Carlos Alvarez]

More secure?


Yes.



have a cookie hijacked and allow someone to gain access as him, but logging in and back out on each visit mitigates that possibility.


No.

....

[Roy Petersen]

Yes.
No.

Gosh, guess you put *me* in my place.
Simply disagreeing doesn't explain anything about your reasoning, leading me to think you may not actually know.
It's not more secure to stay logged in. If it were, there would be no need for things like sessions and timeouts. Logging back in, as in re-authenticating, proves you have the credentials, and doing so over SSL encrypts that submission, making it as secure as possible.

[Carlos Alvarez]

Gosh, guess you put *me* in my place.
Simply disagreeing doesn't explain anything about your reasoning, leading me to think you may not actually know.
It's not more secure to stay logged in. If it were, there would be no need for things like sessions and timeouts. Logging back in, as in re-authenticating, proves you have the credentials, and doing so over SSL encrypts that submission, making it as secure as possible.

Staying logged in is also encrypted. So if you believe that can be cracked, then you also believe that someone could steal your password when you log in again. Therefore, logging in is less secure since you've now ALSO exposed the password, not just allowed access to a temporary session.

Lots of things get done in security that make no sense. There are several password change rules that have been proven to make you LESS secure, yet regulations still require them. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean it's good.

[Roy Petersen]

Staying logged in is also encrypted.
It's done via cookie, in most forum software. If you don't believe me, find the cookies for this forum (without logging out), delete them, and refresh the page you were already logged into. You won't be logged in. As for that cookie, it's possible to steal it and impersonate the user. See this search in Google (https://www.google.com/search?complete=0&source=hp&ei=LBIPW4y7F8aL5wLfh4WoBw&q=cookie+stealing&oq=cookie+stealing&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1458.3382.0.3603.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0. ..1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.ASiTQgQSOZA)


So if you believe that can be cracked, then you also believe that someone could steal your password when you log in again. Therefore, logging in is less secure since you've now ALSO exposed the password, not just allowed access to a temporary session.
You still don't seem to grasp the process, I'm afraid. Data submitted via https is encrypted, generally via 2048 bit SSL cert these days. That's hard to defeat. Not impossible, but very difficult. Stealing a cookie and using that to impersonate (which requires no such decryption)? That's trivial by comparison, and far more likely than intercepting a login and decrypting it.
If you feel better relying on staying logged in to be secure, that's up to you. In reality there's not much benefit or chance of someone going through the trouble for this forum access, but if you feel it's ok here, you may do the same somewhere it *does* make you a target. Your call.

[Carlos Alvarez]

You still don't seem to grasp the process, I'm afraid.

No, not at all. One of my companies makes secure video transport servers for government, but I haven't one clue about security on the web.

[Roy Petersen]

No, not at all. One of my companies makes secure video transport servers for government, but I haven't one clue about security on the web.How would I possibly know that, or for that matter you and knowing what my own background is? I'm basing my comments on the statements you've made that appear erroneous.
Not looking to argue, and I'm done here.

[Bruce Page]

This thread has run its course.