I’m seeing a banner ad here that says “NetworkSolutions $cratcher!” and when you mouse over it, the mouse pointer turns into a coin that you move around. I’m repeatedly having a problem where my mouse pointer disappears completely if I pass it over that ad, and it takes at least a few seconds of shaking it around the screen for it to come back.
FTR, I’m using Safari on a Mac.
Don’t know that we can do anything about it. The moderating staff has no control over the ads here.
I tried to recreate your issue by continuously refreshing until I got the Network Solutions ad. I didn’t see exactly what you mention, and I’m on a Windows machine, but I did see my mouse cursor get screwed up and keep flickering after a mouse over on the flash ad. I checked to see if it was because my version of the Flash player plugin might be old, but I have the latest version 10.0.32.18.
On further investigation, it appears that the issue is not caused by the SDMB, but by the code running the Flash ad. It is not exactly a bug in Flash (although it could be), but an unintended consequence of probably poorly written code.
This is probably what it’s trying to do (hiding the original mouse pointer and creating a custom mouse pointer):
And this is probably what’s happening:
http://www.eclips3media.com/workshop/2007/12/custom-cursor-bug-in-actionscript3/
The above links are just examples. As I don’t have access to the ad’s code, I can’t say for certain that the issue you see is because of this specific bug, but it’ll give you an idea of what could be causing this issue.
As Tubadiva mentioned, the SDMB mods and admins don’t have any control over what ads are displayed, so there’s nothing really they could do to prevent this ad from displaying.
The crazy part is that the mouse pointer flickering persists across tabs, and across multiple websites on every link I mouseover. I had to quit my browser and restart the browser for it to go away. This was in Chrome. Opera, my primary browser, seems to handle it better, but still sees the same issue (instead of flickering it shows a constant busy icon).
If you know the URL to the ad, there are ways of blocking it from starting on any web browser. I won’t support blocking every ad, but those that screw up functionality need to be stopped.
Mods, who is serving the ads? (For example, are they Google ads?) Surely there’s a place to report ads that are malfunctioning. This isn’t just a content issue, which you earlier reported can’t be fixed. We’d be doing the ad server a favor.
Yes. You truly cannot say “We can’t do anything about our site content scewing up your computer.” It doesn’t matter whether you produce the ads. You run the risk of your site being blacklisted.
You should do one of two things (or both):
(1) Allow us to tell people how to shut off harmful ads like that, and/or
(2) Complain to the provider and insist that the ad be modified or not shown
You can’t just shrug this one off. Someone will report your site. Cursor files (like most other graphics files) can and often do contain malicious code that writes itself onto improperly protected computers.
Once you’re blacklisted, malware protection software and anti-virus software will begin blocking your site, and Google will put one of those “This site could harm your computer” messages beside links to you. Your new visitors (and thus your ad revenue) will dwindle to nothing.
Just a heads-up, Tuba. Of all the things you’re having to beg Jerry (or Ed or whoever) for, this one should move straight to the top.
One more time. We have no control over the individual ads.
The moderating staff has no control over the ads whatsoever.
I’m not sure Jerry has control either.
As Ed mentioned earlier, the ads are bought in lots – they’re bundled together – and we can’t refuse some and accept others.
The moderating staff can’t do anything about them.
I doubt Jerry can do much about them either – it’s accept the package or none at all.
With Google ads you pretty much have to accept what they send you too – you can complain if they send you your competitor’s ads, for example, it’s understood you wouldn’t want to run those ads on your site – but everything else pretty much runs. Google kicks people out of the program for complaining, that’s their customer service.
And you know, there’s a couple of other ways to deal with this. You can solve this problem by purchasing a subscription, which would not only remove all ads from his vision but also help keep us in business. Or you can use ad blocking software, which gives the Dope no revenue and fosters no community. Your choice.
I agree with your sentiment, but this specific issue does not qualify as malware. If it did, I agree that it absolutely should be moved to the top of the queue. But in this specific instance, it’s more a bug in Adobe Flash that affects the user experience, and doesn’t affect every user nor compromise the security of the site. While you and I would probably say “OK, then, we agree this affects the user experience. Let’s fix it.”, the reality is that the mods and admins have no ability, access, or authority (apart from making a recommendation) to make that change, and it probably wouldn’t be a priority for those that might, assuming that they do have the ability to control ads on an individual basis.
While I understand if this thread turns into a “The SDMB should listen to its users”, the reason I investigated this issue was to see if I could provide the OP with any information on how to fix this issue on their side. It appears that they could either:
a. wait for a fix from Adobe (this really should be a priority for Adobe)
b. not mouseover on the ad
c. block the specific ad through their hosts file
d. block ads entirely
e. purchase a subscription
Wow. What must that be like?
That’s the stick Google Ads uses to keep people in line. If you complain too much they just discontinue your participation in the program. And they don’t pay you.
You’re exactly right, of course. (And as usual.) I didn’t know that we could mention the hosts file or ad blocking software. I mean, I knew we could mention them, but I didn’t know that we could inform people that these could solve their problem. (My hosts file has more than 12,000 entries.) All your other observations are equally correct, having to do with what or whether anything can be done from the other side. The SDMB side. But keep in mind that any user of IE8 is a couple clicks away from reporting a site for blacklisting. And you and I both know that Microsoft’s blacklist is used by (sold to) many other software vendors — especially those that write malware protection.
So, I rescind my advice to Tuba. You’re right that there’s nothing she can do. Her influence in this area has degraded over time due to corporate manoueverings beyond her control. There was a time when Tuba could tell Ed, “Hey, we need this,” and it would be done. But you know what Bob Dylan said.
I think he was just having a bit of fun with you Tuba — making a comparison of the service and policies of Google to the service and policies of SDMB. I could be wrong, but that’s how it came across to me. 
One more thing. The “purchase a subscription” is a good solution. However, if you have logged off or your cookie has been cleared, you still have to see ads until you log on. Just saying is all.
Subscribing does not get rid of all the add, just the ones in threads.
I vote that “Participation In The Program Discontinued” replace “Banned” as the new title for unmembers.
I vote that each “discontinuation” be sponsored by a buggy flash ad. So instead of the username of the discontinuee, all you see is the ad.
I didn’t expect you to be able to report it. I expected one of us to be able to, since we’re the ones having the problem. Since Google serves ads almost everywhere, we could report it without impugning the SDMB at all.
All I wanted from you was to know who serves the ads. It shouldn’t hurt if one of us tries. And it might help.
I didn’t consider reporting the bug to Adobe. That would also make sense. But it sounds like the bug was already reported
I did want to at least post how to block just that one ad, but it seems nobody wants to post a URL. And it seems xach was already on the case, anyways.
Oh, and, BTW, I know of at least one way to remove the ads where the user wouldn’t see them, but it would still count as being served. So pay or adblock is a false dichotomy.