blocking ad ware

Anyone hear of alltagcloud.info?

It is causing a problem that seems to show up on certain forums.

After moving to a new page, you have to hit the "back" button more than once to return
to a previous page. Looking at the list of the page "path", you see:

http://www.altagcloud.info/icons/index

and sometimes also

http://.googleads.g.doubleclick.net/page

in the list.

They don't show up as web pages when moving through them. But you have to keep
hitting the "back" button to get past them. Placing the addresses in the site blocker
doesn't help.

No problem here. Do you have Ad Block Plus installed? If not you should get it and see if that doesn't fix things.

I am building a new computer soon, so I'll have some more up to date stuff.
Even with IE 6.0, I can eliminate the problem by using a high security setting.
But you lose some functionality at some sites.

I am asking more for many others that are seeing the same problem with IE 7 and 8,
and no one seems to know how to get rid of the extra adresses in the page path.
Higher security settings work but again, cause loss of some functions.

I'll try some things like Ad Block Plus. But it's strange though, because the forums
that are affected can't find anything that could be loading this stuff in.

It's something that just started recently too, I think.

Yeah, it happens in higher versions of IE too.
You can mitigate it to a large degree by going to Tools->Internet Options->Security->Restricted Sites zone->Sites
and adding
http://*.doubleclick.net
https://*.doubleclick.net
to the list

Doesn't block ads, but the back button works where it previously didn't on the one page I tested it on (YOUNG MC lyrics: 33 song lyrics)

Thanks. It didn't help on my computer, but it obviously can help.

I will pass the information along in case it can help the others.

It's strange. Most are not having the problem, but a few are (like me).

Does it matter how the sites are specified in the site blocker? Do all versions of
IE recognize wild cards, '*' ?

The only other thing I can think of, if that hasn't worked, is editing the hosts file, and changing bad domain names to the local address. See Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

The only other thing I can think of, if that hasn't worked, is editing the hosts file, and changing bad domain names to the local address. See Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File

---

If it is a page between links and not parallel connections, wouldn't that method result in 404 when those links are clicked ?

No, you would get a domain error. The host files block any attempts to connect to those servers, hence you can't get a 404 which is a sever response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

No, you would get a domain error. The host files block any attempts to connect to those servers, hence you can't get a 404 which is a sever response.

---

Why?
I knew that it just says that the specified domain is essentially localhost.
So, attempting to find.. say .. ad_454444.php on your computer would result in a file not found .

True, you would most likely get a 404, if your local computer is running a web server, which most aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

True, you would most likely get a 404, if your local computer is running a web server, which most aren't.

---

Even if it isn't, some kind of error would be shown (In Firefox: Can't establish connection) . And the original purpose, proceeding to the destination page, would have failed.

That is what I meant by domain error. The browser cannot establish a connection to the domain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megafiddle

I am building a new computer soon, so I'll have some more up to date stuff.
Even with IE 6.0,

---

You just haven't had the chance to upgrade sometime in the past four years or what? IE 6 is one of the most notoriously defective pieces of software of all time. If you insist on using it, why bother to complain about anything?

IE6 No More - Home
Video > What's Wrong with Internet Explorer 6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

This version [6] of Internet Explorer is widely criticized for its security issues and lack of support for modern web standards, making frequent appearances in "worst tech products of all time" lists, with some publications labeling it as the "least secure software on the planet." Because a substantial percentage of the web audience still uses the outdated browser, campaigns have been established to encourage users to upgrade to newer versions of Internet Explorer or switch to different browsers. Some websites have dropped support for IE6 entirely, most notable of which is Google dropping support in some of its services.

---

Ie, don't expect them or anyone else to care anymore about the endless list of problems produced by IE6's poor standards compliance. It's probably the worst thing that ever happened to the WWW. So now you know, please do not insist on using it.

At least upgrade to 8 or 9, then start looking for solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

You just haven't had the chance to upgrade sometime in the past four years or what? IE 6 is one of the most notoriously defective pieces of software of all time. If you insist on using it, why bother to complain about anything?

---

I'm not complaining. As I have IE 6 set up, it does 99 % of everything I need to do, and it does it fast.

As I already stated, others are having problems with IE 8 also. It's not just an IE 6 problem.

They seem to have fixed the problem although they are not saying what they did to fix it.

So thanks, and no need for anyone to look further for solutions.

Get your ass of IE6.
Seriously, what reasons do you have that can possibly make up for the fact that you are running an extremely old web browser?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elysia

Seriously, what reasons do you have that can possibly make up for the fact that you are running an extremely old web browser?

---

I believe the most popular excuse is, "it is easier for me to be lazy and force other people to maintain backward compatibility with a deprecated and defective product, driving up development costs for sites I don't pay anything for anyway, than it would be to spend 10 minutes upgrading."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megafiddle

I'm not complaining. As I have IE 6 set up, it does 99 % of everything I need to do, and it does it fast.

---

That's great -- and screw everyone else I guess, as long as you get what you want? Did you watch that 2 minute video? I have to do that tish. It is a ridiculous pain in the ass. Thankfully, some people are starting to say, okay, time's up. Don't bother with the IE6 work arounds. To be nice, we'll put a short circuit in the server config sending people to a "Please upgrade" page.

I hope that "forced upgrade" thing for IE 6 and 7 actually turns out right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

I hope that "forced upgrade" thing for IE 6 and 7 actually turns out right.

---

Sounds like it:
Microsoft to Force New Internet Explorer on Users / Infopackets.com

I think one of the concerns about IE6 is WRT large institutions deploying XP who are waiting until 2014 to upgrade the OS. Eg, the Queen's Public Library system in New York City, which has thousands of free public access internet terminals, was still using IE6 the last time I was there, and I imagine "forced upgrading" will just fail in that setting.

They should include a kill switch in each of their versions, that when run once killed would pop a message saying: "This version is too old and therefore will not run. Upgrade immediately to solve this problem!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

I believe the most popular excuse is, "it is easier for me to be lazy and force other people to maintain backward compatibility with a deprecated and defective product, driving up development costs for sites I don't pay anything for anyway, than it would be to spend 10 minutes upgrading."

That's great -- and screw everyone else I guess, as long as you get what you want? Did you watch that 2 minute video? I have to do that tish. It is a ridiculous pain in the ass. Thankfully, some people are starting to say, okay, time's up. Don't bother with the IE6 work arounds. To be nice, we'll put a short circuit in the server config sending people to a "Please upgrade" page.

---

First, as I already said twice, the problem was also occuring with IE 8. Even if I had already
upgraded a couple times, I would have been posting the same question.

And second no one consulted with me about continuing to support IE 6 or anything else. If
anyone wants to support older stuff, that's a business decision they made for their own
reasons. They can turn me off anytime they want. I'm not stopping them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megafiddle

no one consulted with me about continuing to support IE 6 or anything else. If
anyone wants to support older stuff, that's a business decision they made for their own
reasons. They can turn me off anytime they want. I'm not stopping them.

---

I've put up IE6 browser re-directs before (using that video), and one of the things that surprised me, as a bit of a pessimist regarding human behaviour, is that most of the feedback was positive -- ie, it was from people who said, "Thank you for providing this information, I had no idea and I've upgraded my browser." Apparently many people just stuck with IE6 because it came with windows XP and they didn't see the point of upgrading, but when presented with some facts, happily changed their mind.

I guess that makes you part of a minority who instead, took this as an affront to their ego or whatever, and ..........ed about how they thought it was rude to not continue to support a decade old product the manufacturer has given up on and issued warnings about, even tho upgrading is free, painless, and takes < 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

First, as I already said twice, the problem was also occuring with IE 8.

---

I'm sure IE8 is not perfect either, but that it is not a reason not to upgrade (and nb, you're probably lucky it did affect IE8, or I bet they would not have fixed it). I could understand this kind of ignorance from a non-programmer whose head is filled with superstitious tripe, but I just don't get it from someone who should know that keeping your software updated is the best thing for everyone concerned including yourself.

Hopefully HTML 5 will change that, but of course, here's the vicious circle: the norm in the industry is still to support IE6 because so many people still use it out of ignorance, and it's the browser that came with their OS. So people are afraid of using HTML 5, etc., because they know too many people are scared of upgrading and will just give up when a site doesn't work for them.

Next time anyone thinks, "Hey, why isn't the web more modern yet?", blame megafiddle. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MK27

Next time anyone thinks, "Hey, why isn't the web more modern yet?", blame megafiddle. ;)

---

I wish I had that much power! Fact is I'm not responsible for the antiquity of anything.
If you own a website and provide support for outdated stuff, that's your decision. And
if you are working for someone who insists on providing that kind of support, then take
it up with your emplorer.

It would be very different if I were complaining about IE6, or asking for continued support.
I have done neither.

Quote:

---

I'm sure IE8 is not perfect either, but that it is not a reason not to upgrade (and nb, you're probably lucky it did affect IE8, or I bet they would not have fixed it). I could understand this kind of ignorance from a non-programmer whose head is filled with superstitious tripe, but I just don't get it from someone who should know that keeping your software updated is the best thing for everyone concerned including yourself.

---

Imperfections in newer versions had nothing to do with my continued use of IE6. I only
mentioned that the problem was occuring with both IE6 and IE8 for trouble shooting
purposes.

And what makes you think I use IE6 out of of any type of ignorance?
Maybe I just happen to like it?

Quote:

---

I guess that makes you part of a minority who instead, took this as an affront to their ego or whatever, and ..........ed about how they thought it was rude to not continue to support a decade old product the manufacturer has given up on and issued warnings about, even tho upgrading is free, painless, and takes < 10 minutes.

---

No, I am not "..........ed" about anyone not supporting anything. Where would you even
get that from anything I said?

And as far as minorities are concerned, I am in the one that learns to use something
and continues to use it as long as it works. I have all kinds of old things that I use
because I prefer them.

I go to youtube with EI6. it says "your browser is outdated". Yet I can still watch any video I want.

I am pretty sure that there is not some bit of software there going "Oh No! Megafiddle is here again! Keep that old stuff running!"

Well I'm just surprized you still have it. The upgrades for IE have been in the windows update queue for a while now. You dodged quite a big bullet.

Spybot Search and Destroy will do all of this for you and has over 200,000 known sites it adds to your list. I would recommend using it instead of manually entering sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megafiddle

I wish I had that much power! Fact is I'm not responsible for the antiquity of anything.
If you own a website and provide support for outdated stuff, that's your decision. And
if you are working for someone who insists on providing that kind of support, then take
it up with your emplorer.

It would be very different if I were complaining about IE6, or asking for continued support.
I have done neither.


Imperfections in newer versions had nothing to do with my continued use of IE6. I only
mentioned that the problem was occuring with both IE6 and IE8 for trouble shooting
purposes.

And what makes you think I use IE6 out of of any type of ignorance?
Maybe I just happen to like it?




No, I am not "..........ed" about anyone not supporting anything. Where would you even
get that from anything I said?

And as far as minorities are concerned, I am in the one that learns to use something
and continues to use it as long as it works. I have all kinds of old things that I use
because I prefer them.

I go to youtube with EI6. it says "your browser is outdated". Yet I can still watch any video I want.

I am pretty sure that there is not some bit of software there going "Oh No! Megafiddle is here again! Keep that old stuff running!"

---

You are the enemy of all software engineers and a danger to all computer users. That is all I have to say.

Quote:

---

I am pretty sure that there is not some bit of software there going "Oh No! Megafiddle is here again! Keep that old stuff running!"

---

Actually supporting older versions in new software does exactly that but not based on your user name. You are forcing the code to take completely different paths and thus open up all kinds of opportunities for new bugs. Supporting older code in newer code lines is the biggest PITA you will ever encounter. This is why most studios only support two versions at one time. The current version and the previous version. Anything more than that becomes a nightmare in source control, maintenance, etc. Imagine someone reports a bug in some older version of software and you are assigned to fix it. However you cannot break any current functionality either b/c that would upset current users. What usually ends up happening is the code gets littered with a ton of #ifdefs b/c even though code is designed to be modular and easy to maintain there is no code line in existence that can support all versions efficiently. You could introduce yet another bug in IE6 with your bug fix. Even if you branch the two it is possible that a bug fix in an older code line could get accidentally placed into a new code line. There is also the possibility that the bug in the old code line does not exist or make sense in the new code line due to different designs. Now turn the tide and you are a developer that is creating a new feature in a new code line yet you must make sure your new feature does not break any existing functionality in any previous version. Imagine the testing that would need to take place to verify such a thing. Now you can understand what Microsoft goes through with their Win32 API. They try like mad to never break any Win32 API functionality. What ends up happening is now the API is cluttered with old code and new code (new versions of same functions usually have the suffix Ex on then) and the entire code line becomes a nightmare.

Also in a studio you are constantly moving on to the next thing and your worst nightmare is when QA comes up and says there is a bug they want you to look at and it happens to be in a code line that is almost 4 years old. Hopefully there is documentation about the code line but even that is not completely adequate in most cases. So you must change gears, rewind 4 years in the past, try to contact people who worked on it (if they still work at the company), dig up the old documentation and requirements (to ensure your fix doesn't violate them) etc., etc. A huge mess and not a good day at work.

It is a much bigger issue than you may think.