Timeline for Ad crap is causing browser errors, is this acceptable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2016 at 16:43 | vote | accept | Timo | ||
| Apr 7, 2016 at 20:09 | history | edited | DenimjeanStaff |
The issue has now been resolved.
|
|
| Mar 29, 2016 at 20:55 | answer | added | DenimjeanStaff | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:52 | comment | added | Timo | @muru, yeah that's the name of the game today. Everybody's tracking everybody and that's fine, it's business as usual. The thing that I don't like is when an advertiser tries to do something the browser deems illegal, like executing gifs as scripts.. :) | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:44 | comment | added | Timo | @stevvve I don't see nor do I expect to see any animations. The add displays "correct" for what I can tell, but apparently tries to load a gif as a script at some point. I tried with another computer using incognito (though with same internet) and was able to reproduce after a couple of refreshes. Whether this is a serious security concern or a minor bug on adzerk/doublecliks side or something else I do not know. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:41 | comment | added | muru | @TimoLehto It's obvious whoever's injecting ads in your case is tracking you. But I don't see anything of that kind here. Just for the sake of it, I tried with Firefox's incognito mode over Tor … and oddly enough, I stopped seing ads altogether. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:32 | comment | added | Timo | @muru, obviously the ads are tailored to each individual and whatever information they have about you. With incognito I get a different ad, this time without errors, but the structure is about the same and the end source is ad.doubleclick.net, but ofcourse they still know my ip at least so they know something about me, so you might get different add. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:23 | comment | added | stevvve StaffMod | Also: you all are correct, we are exceptionally strict about what kind of advertisements we allow on SE, but DoubleClick is not necessarily a questionable source. It simply hosts creatives for which they generate creative tags which we then upload to Adzerk, our server, who kindly delivers the creatives to SE. If there is a something malicious going on here (which is unclear to me as yet), it won't be just bc the creative is coming from DoubleClick. More important: can anyone repro the error? | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:16 | history | edited | Timo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added some more info
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:14 | comment | added | stevvve StaffMod | @TimoLehto: you're not seeing the ad animate, correct? I don't see it animate either, but I don't think that's your concern. Can you be a little more specific? | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:13 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | This isn't a problem on Stack Exchange's end. It's somewhere either on your machine or between your machine and the SE servers - not only does Stack Exchange never serve animated ads, nobody else seems to be able to reproduce this. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | muru | The ads on SE are all static images. And for me, adzerk loads no iframes. There's just a regular div with an img for the image, plus a couple of divs for voting buttons. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:09 | comment | added | user364819 | If you don't want to see the ads, whoever and why ever they are coming, you should just use an extension such as Ad Block Plus. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:04 | comment | added | Timo | I'll attach the full html page for the askubuntu question, but looking at the source it looks like adzerk loaded inside it's iframe another iframe from another advertisement provider. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | Seth Mod | Related: meta.stackexchange.com/a/213770/203389 | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 19:00 | comment | added | Seth Mod | Stack Exchange is very strict in what advertising they use. They're the only company I've found that even has a contingency plan for users in case they someday go rogue.. So, yes, I'm sure. I'll ping an SE dev to take a look in case this is happening and they don't know, but it is very very unlikely. They probably won't respond until the weekend ends. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:58 | comment | added | Timo | @Seth, are you sure adzerk doesn't sometimes use third party advertisers like ad.doubleclick.com? I find it quite difficult to believe that Finnish ISPs would swap askubuntus SEs advertisements to something more of their liking. Likewise I'm finding it difficult to believe the problem would be in their/my DNS. What it comes to extensions I do not have any extensions installed except for Ember Inspector and Google docs, cast and docs offline all of which I'm quite sure are safe to use. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:53 | comment | added | Seth Mod | Stack Exchange does not use these companies/URLs. You're not getting them from the site. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:50 | history | edited | Timo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed screen capture to be less distracting
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:42 | comment | added | Timo | Ah, sorry the screen capture is perhaps a bit misleading. The targeted element is in no way relevant here, it's just the console log entry that is meaningful. I'll fix it since I still have it open on my tabs. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:42 | comment | added | muru | SE uses adzerk: meta.stackexchange.com/q/238387/270345. One possibility is that your ISP could be inserting ads. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:41 | comment | added | Seth Mod | SE doesn't use doubleclick for ads. You're either using bad DNS or you have a nasty extension installed. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:39 | comment | added | Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy | Your screenshot suggests the advertisement is hidden in that "Answered X minutes ago " ( or whatever time/date ) text . I've never had it and it shows up for me as plain text. | |
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:38 | history | edited | kos | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 79 characters in body
|
| Mar 27, 2016 at 18:31 | history | asked | Timo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |