Stardate 20010613.1823 (On Screen): This is a reasonably good article discussing some of the more obnoxious and intrusive lengths to which the big-budget web sites are going with their advertising. It's inspired by that NY Times "pop-under" which has gotten so many people peeved. It correctly points out that sites which use advertising which is too intrusive risk a drop-off in visits. (They
don't mention that a lot of this crap can be selectively stopped with good blocking software.)
Am I the only one who finds it strange that this article is on CNet, who introduced the huge, obnoxious, intrusive Flash ads embedded in their articles? Or the fact that they decided not to put one in this particular article? (But this does explain why they don't mention filtering software, because then it might occur to people that if you were to filter out everything matching the string ".swf" originating from any site matching the string "cnet.com" then it would eliminate all those Flash ads from CNet's pages.) (kvetch)
