Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: Web pages Infested by mouse hover pop-ups

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    422
    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.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Damon View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    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".

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    422
    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.

  5. #35
    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.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    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'.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Petersen View Post
    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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Doylestown, PA
    Posts
    7,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Wintle View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Petersen View Post
    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.

    ....

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Petersen View Post
    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.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    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

    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.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Petersen View Post
    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.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Alvarez View Post
    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.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the foothills of the Sandia Mountains
    Posts
    16,620
    This thread has run its course.
    Please help support the Creek.


    "It's paradoxical that the idea of living a long life appeals to everyone, but the idea of getting old doesn't appeal to anyone."
    Andy Rooney



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •