Talk:Pop-up ad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Not effective?[edit]

The most recent edit put the words "not effectively" next to IE XP SP2 in the browser list. That seems a bit POV to me, since not all other pop-up blockers are 100% effective. And IE has settings for it that can tweak the effectiveness of its pop-up blocking, which that comment doesn't take into account. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 01:10, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. We're better off without it. --Spug 14:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

browsers that block pop ups[edit]

iCab has blocked pop ups on the Mac for at least 5 years (

Including desirable popups, such as the one that my bank at the time required users to log in through... Heather (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop-up blocking has gotten better[edit]

Pop-up blocking has gotten better over the past few years - especially with non-Microsoft products. One software product I used a few years ago was pretty much all or nothing. It'd just block all pop-up windows, even those that the user requested. The product had it so your pushed the ctrl key to bypass the popup blocker when clicking on a link and allow the pop up to work. The built in software on Firefox has been for me over 90% effective. I get unrequested pop-ups only once in a great while, and almost never have problems with requested pop-ups.
JesseG 03:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Firefox is a godsend. I don't use it much though. +_+ Worldmaster0
Recently I have noticed more pop-ups with all of my browsers, however they are usually blank due to adblock plus. (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in Firefox[edit]

This article, along with the article for Adware, doesn't show up correctly for me in Firefox. In both articles the first paragraph does not appear. Does anyone know why this is? -- LGagnon 23:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Are you using Firefox 1.0.4? Perhaps you have a greasemonkey script or other extension that's interfering with them? One of my AdBlock filters prevents me from seeing the image in this article. ··gracefool | 01:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. The Sponsored Links Remover script for GreaseMonkey was the cause. -- LGagnon 05:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the problems with Greasemonkey; there have been several high-profile cases of people mistaking the effect of a greasemonkey script to a change in a website. The developers are considering how to address this. But this whole section is off-topic :J ··gracefool | 10:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible External Link Removal[edit]

It is odd that we link to a page called "".

It is also odd that we link to a page about a popup remover that itself contains a popup!

Yes, very odd. Worldmaster0

== the history of pop-ups == hi

Hi, I was just curious if anyone knows when the first pop-up was designed. I'm doing a project on pop-ups but every time I search for the history, I seem to get history of pop-up books. I would really appreciate any information I could get. Thanks!

section added[edit]

Hello. Just added the section on the floating ad. I did a search for it, but there were no references to it anywhere so I added it here since that made the most sense. Not sure if it deserves its own article, as it seems to cross several advertising boundaries at once. --Bobcat 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to mix and match terminology fairly liberally. For instance, it talks about the McAfee "pop-up", which is nothing like what is being described anywhere else in the article (it doesn't open in a browser window, doesn't utilise JavaScript, and is not a webpage). Then there is the problem of the murkiness of the terminology itself. Take, for instance, pop-up spam (which I can't believe Wikipedia doesn't have an article on), a phenomenon that can still be observed today on WinXP machines that don't have SP2 installed. These were ads that opened in pure Java (not JavaScript) dialogs, independent of any Web browser. (Why doesn't this article at least mention these? I'd add a section myself, but haven't time to dig up reliable sources.) I recall quite a few of them being for dodgy university degrees. Heather (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IE 7 Beta 2[edit]

With the release of Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 (the Windows part of the name must be to strengthen links with XP and Vista) I've added IE7 to the pop-up blocking browsers list. IE7 includes all of the features of IE6SP2, with tabbed browsing added. Digifiend 11:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Very poorly written section[edit]

"One way for PC users to close these ad windows is accessing the Task Manager via the Control-Alt-Delete shortcut and terminating Internet Explorer, which can result in all active IE windows (including those not connected to the pop-up) closing, and another way to close the mousetrapping window could be to hold down the Alt button and press F4 to close the active window. It is not known why advertisers use these techniques as they are more likely to annoy and even anger the consumer than making them buy the product praised in the ad."

How can we give an opinion like such in an encyclopedia article. I am changing this immediatly. - tingalex

Besides, it's incorrect as it is, we all know exactly why advertisers employ these techniques. It's because they're very cheap, so that only .01% (In many cases, less than this!) of the targeted users need take an interest in the product for the advertisement in question to pull in any profit. As you can imagine, there are plenty of people who would potentially be interested in an advertised product at any given time, so these numbers aren't hard to garner. Perhaps this should be referenced in the article? Or, is it too unrelated one might think?-- (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with pop-up blockers and non-advertising 'pop-ups'[edit]

I reorganized this section. Most of the information on Cyworld belonged in the Cyworld article and not this one. Tocharianne 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC):)

I don't understand this passage:[edit]

Online dating services are most prevalent in this category;,,, and are known to harvest email addresses and create false accounts for the purposes of increasing site traffic and boosting advertising revenue. Accounts created in this way usually only remain active for three to four weeks before the hijack is discovered and the account deleted.

This says that the sites are doing the hijacking, then implies that the sites discover they are being hijacked. What's up?

Not all pop-ups are ads[edit]

I'm rather disappointed to see that the English Wikipedia-article about pop-up windows in reality is an article about pop-up ads. Lots of sites use requested pop-ups, but the article (as written now) almost bypasses this kind of use. It is mentioned in a subsection under Pop-up blocking (Problems with pop-up blockers and non-advertising 'pop-ups') - and the use of quotation marks seems to suggest that these "non-advertising 'pop-ups'" are not really pop-ups. My question is then what would you call them if not pop-ups?

Furthermore - the text mentions that "problems can arise when they are inappopriately blocked". While it is true that it is a problem when a desirable pop-up is blocked, it is only rarely a real life problem. Most sites that use "desirable pop-ups" are well aware of the fact that all major browsers block unrequested pop-ups - and very few popup-blockers block requested pop-ups by default.

Regarding the use of pop-ups - and the implications for the average user - the article very briefly notes that "most modern browsers come with pop-up blocking tools". The fact that the standard pop-up-ad for most people now is history is not mentioned. It is correct that some advertisers "seek ways to circumvent" different kinds of ad-blocking, but the article should mention that one of the ways advertisers (and the websites that sell ad-space) "circumvent" ad-blocking, is by going "back to basics" - i.e. using simple graphics or even textual ads (like Google).

I have read the Swedish and German wiki-articles for Pop Up - none of them are as detailed as this version but they are in my opinion both more unbiased and more accurate than the current English version.

I hope that you native users of the English Wikipedia will take this comment as a friendly suggestion from a foreigner. My skills in English are not good enough to edit articles in English, but given the vast difference in number of articles, you should know – and probably already do – that “your” Wikipedia has readers from many countries where English is a second or foreign language.

Regards from Denmark

Jgc.gyros 09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pop-up ads.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Pop-up ads.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Could you maybe add in some stats on how many users use popup blockers?

Technical How-to?=[edit]

How about giving an objective look at popup ads and giving techniques to create them? Alanic 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree 100%, i would like to create them for my website, in order to generate some revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are There Any Studies On How Effective This Form Of Advertising is?[edit]

I feel it would be interesting to read, not to mention that it would deserve comment on for this article. Pop-up ads seem so universally dismissed and loathed, that I've always wondered how much worth they could possibly hold to advertisers. I mean, I generally don't think to highly of a company simply by default when they resort to intrusive pop-ups advertising... KWaal 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this would add much to the article SMakabwe (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


I feel that the current image exaggerates the quantity of pop-up ads one usually encounters, i.e. that's a helluva lot of ads. Could we find or produce an image with mebbe just two or three ads? Vertigo893 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A new plague of pop-ups on Wikipedia[edit]

A plague of pop-ups on Wikipedia has recently appeared where underlined blue text that at first seems to be a wikilink takes you to an expensive competition for an iPad. Presumably Wikipedia is addressing this. Where can I go for more information on helping to stamp out this menace, please? (I see that even this entry by me has inadvertently exacerbated this problem, with a link to "ClickCompare"). Arrivisto (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


I have severe problems with pop ups (not with Wikipedia but with other sites) and I followed the external link to the Wikihow article on pop ups. This highly recommends the free download of SparkTrust. This program appears to do the common trick pretending to be free and claiming that it finds extensive problems and then requiring you to register (and presumably pay but I did not proceed that far) to remove the faults. Several reviews say SparkTrust is a Trojan. Is Wikipedia linking to malware? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikihow page does not now mention SparkTrust. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)