?

Log in

Popups on LiveJournal? Say it ain't so. - Sophie
browse
my journal
links
January 2012
 

Date: 2006-06-23 11:58
Security: Public
Tags:public
Subject: Popups on LiveJournal? Say it ain't so.

[this is a public post]

[to anybody coming here from the no_lj_ads post - hi! The vast majority of my journal is friends-only, so you won't see a lot of public posts from me here. I generally only post publically when there's an issue that I want to vent about that I feel everybody needs to see - like this. Feel free to add me if you like, but I probably won't add you back unless I know you.]

[Update: it looks like my post to no_lj_ads has hit Slashdot.]

Okay, I will. It ain't so. There's been no LiveJournal policy change. Popups are not, as far as I know, ever going to appear on LJ.

So why are some S+ users getting them now?

To cut a long story short, this is because of a certain advertiser - kpremium.com (not linked; don't go there, I don't believe they deserve it) - being sneaky and underhanded. It's not LJ's fault, and I have no doubt that the ad will be gone in a few hours.

The ad itself is for a program that lets you download stuff - you know the sort of thing. The ad is a Flash ad, and masquerades as a banner ad.

Thing is, the Flash ad contains code to open a popup that leads to a very different destination - it's what I assume is an affiliate link that attempts to download and install ErrorSafe on your computer (link is to Symantec's description of it).

This, of course, would be totally against any ad company's guidelines. Masquerading as a banner ad, but discreetly opening a popup - and not only that, but to what people consider malware - is totally against any ad company's guidelines. So how did it get through?

Simple - the ad actually contacts its website in the background, and the site returns a response code that tells it whether to display the popup or not - "popup=1". My guess is that kpremium.com returned "popup=0" while the ad company were testing the ad for conformance to guidelines, and then they turned it back on once it was out in the wild.

This, my friends, is an absolutely despicable way to do things.

So, it's not LiveJournal's fault. No LJ policy change has been made. kpremium.com are the underhanded ones, and the ad company didn't spot the request the ad made. I have every faith that LiveJournal will nuke the offending ad as soon as possible.

Grrrrr.

Post A Comment | 15 Comments | Share | Link



diamond_gem06
User: diamond_gem06
Date: 2006-06-23 12:01 (UTC)
Subject: Pop Up

I was wondering what the hell that was! Even when I try to close it down it pops back up, whatever I do it still appears it's so annoying *grrr*. How's things with you? I hope ir OK. I got my Graduation Ball tonight, I'm excited but it means I will be spending a whole evening in Ian's company, it's odd because although I don't really want to talk to him, if he spends the whole evening ignoring me or if I don't get the chance to talk to him it will be agony! Does that make any sense?

Take Care

Gem

Reply | Thread | Link

Sophie
User: soph
Date: 2006-06-23 12:14 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Pop Up

Did you know that LiveJournal has an option for a totally free account level, with no ads? You get less features but I don't think you're using that many features right now.

Take a look at http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=262&view=full if you're interested in learning more.

And yeah, what you said makes sense. *hugs* I hope you have a good time, anyway.

Take care. :)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Morti
User: morti
Date: 2006-06-23 12:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

On an unrelated note, you need to AIM or call me or something.

Reply | Thread | Link

Sophie
User: soph
Date: 2006-06-23 12:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

Was just going online but you're not online youself...

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Gizensha
User: haunter_uk
Date: 2006-06-23 16:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

...Well, true, that isn't LJ's fault, but a heck of a lot of other things are...

http://sir-quirky-k.livejournal.com/38847.html and http://www.daweaver.free-online.co.uk/archives/cat_sixapartisuseless.html would be the relevent links for that.

Reply | Thread | Link

Skittish Eclipse: foxfly
User: foxfirefey
Date: 2006-06-23 16:18 (UTC)
Userpic:foxfly
Subject: (no subject)

I'd love it if you'd crosspost this to no_lj_ads.

Reply | Thread | Link

Sophie
User: soph
Date: 2006-06-23 17:08 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

That was the plan. :)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Skittish Eclipse: fireworks
User: foxfirefey
Date: 2006-06-23 17:09 (UTC)
Userpic:fireworks
Subject: (no subject)

Yaaay!

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Travis Kite
User: mrkite15
Date: 2006-06-23 16:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

That is a really, really despicable way to advertise. Those people have no morals.

Reply | Thread | Link

User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2006-06-24 20:30 (UTC)
Subject: Ya OK

Listen ciaran, so since your now an internet detective and you seem to know alot about the world of cyberspace, maybe you should answer more mysterious questions. Bah, JK.

Please dont give false comments like "It's nOT ljs fault. you know what you dont know, and you need to maybe just give an opinion like "I dont think that its... " There, after this small and simple english lesson, you should get your head out of your computer screen and start living your life and stop living a fake one online.

so sad.

Reply | Thread | Link

Sophie
User: soph
Date: 2006-06-24 21:05 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Ya OK

Listen. I hate ads on LJ as much as you do. I don't want them at all. And perhaps I was wrong when I said LJ couldn't do anything about it.

But this was not LiveJournal's fault directly. This was an advertiser who decided to circumvent the ad company's rules. That much is obvious; absolutely no ad company would allow something like this.

If you're cynical about that, look at it this way: masquerading as a banner ad, yet popping up a window on demand is the equivalent of two adverts in one. Ad companies would therefore at least want to charge more for such a thing, and if that is in fact what they did, why is there the need to check back to the site to determine whether to display the popup? Surely it would be better to display the popup all the time and thus get more exposure.

And for the record, I was up with some friends in London today hanging out and watching a musical. So, I'm sorry, but I do have a life, which is obviously more than I can say for you. Grow up and post under your real name, please.

You lose. Thanks for playing.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: honeypot1
Date: 2006-06-30 06:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

You've been randomly selected for a survey about the demographics of LiveJournal users. Please take a moment to fill out this poll. The data collected will only be used in the calculation of anonymous statistics. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact nikolasco.

Reply | Thread | Link

Carrie: she tampered in God's domain
User: coffeechica
Date: 2006-08-04 17:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

Comment!

Reply | Thread | Link

Something witty goes right here: squee
User: maidenus
Date: 2006-08-04 17:18 (UTC)
Userpic:squee
Subject: (no subject)

Hi, friend! Requested comment insert here! :D

Reply | Thread | Link

jolene ang: _support
User: inkpots
Date: 2006-08-04 17:18 (UTC)
Userpic:_support
Subject: (no subject)

i didn't read any of that, but i'm commenting anyway. =p

Reply | Thread | Link