<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Firefox&#8217;s &#8220;NoScript Add on&#8221; Killing Your Online Marketing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/</link>
	<description>News, and links for WAH entrepreneurs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:36:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-353128</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/#comment-353128</guid>
		<description>As a user of FireFox noscript, I just want to say that the primary reason many users employ this extension is for security. At least that&#039;s the way I see it. Users wishing to block out ads would find AdBlock extension much more useful for that purpose.

I basically use noscript not to block javascripts completely, but rather to filter out the ones I don&#039;t trust. It lets you filter out which scripts you want to run, as there are many rogue scripts across the web that will damage the PC&#039;s of unsuspecting users.

It also lets you create a &quot;whitelist&quot; of completely trusted websites and scripts. The websites I go to quite often and ones that I know are trustworthy I always enable scripting on, even the advertisements. I never know when an Ad might direct me to a really useful sight or product so I keep that option open at least on trustworthy websites. And when browsing sites I&#039;m not sure about, I enable scripting only after I verify the sight to be safe.

It&#039;s more of a security measure that anything else; don&#039;t allow particular scripts to run unless they are completely safe and always allow verified scripts to run by default.

From a marketing perspective, I also don&#039;t think noscript will make a significant impact as these security measures provided by it are more of a burden for most end-users than anything else. It requires patience to learn and get used to, something a lot of end-users don&#039;t have when it comes to computers. In addition, many users may not even understand the concept of scripts and subsequently won&#039;t bother with noscript, further hindering mass-adoption of this extension.

Just my $0.02. I hope my perspective helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a user of FireFox noscript, I just want to say that the primary reason many users employ this extension is for security. At least that&#8217;s the way I see it. Users wishing to block out ads would find AdBlock extension much more useful for that purpose.</p>
<p>I basically use noscript not to block javascripts completely, but rather to filter out the ones I don&#8217;t trust. It lets you filter out which scripts you want to run, as there are many rogue scripts across the web that will damage the PC&#8217;s of unsuspecting users.</p>
<p>It also lets you create a &#8220;whitelist&#8221; of completely trusted websites and scripts. The websites I go to quite often and ones that I know are trustworthy I always enable scripting on, even the advertisements. I never know when an Ad might direct me to a really useful sight or product so I keep that option open at least on trustworthy websites. And when browsing sites I&#8217;m not sure about, I enable scripting only after I verify the sight to be safe.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s more of a security measure that anything else; don&#8217;t allow particular scripts to run unless they are completely safe and always allow verified scripts to run by default.</p>
<p>From a marketing perspective, I also don&#8217;t think noscript will make a significant impact as these security measures provided by it are more of a burden for most end-users than anything else. It requires patience to learn and get used to, something a lot of end-users don&#8217;t have when it comes to computers. In addition, many users may not even understand the concept of scripts and subsequently won&#8217;t bother with noscript, further hindering mass-adoption of this extension.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02. I hope my perspective helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Dilbeck</title>
		<link>http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/comment-page-1/#comment-342697</link>
		<dc:creator>John Dilbeck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://work-at-home.business-opportunities.biz/2008/07/31/is-firefoxs-noscript-add-on-killing-your-online-marketing/#comment-342697</guid>
		<description>Hi Chuck,

Thanks for linking to my post about the NoScript addon for Firefox. 

I think it&#039;s bad enough that an addon can filter out javascript, but what about the people who turn off javascript in their browsers?

I&#039;ve done that when I wanted to get information fast and didn&#039;t want to be slowed to a crawl because some pages have so many javascripts that have to be downloaded.

If I were on broadband, I probably would not have turned off javascript, but back here in the mountains where I live, all I have available is a slow dial-up connection and a page loaded with javascripts can take (seemingly) forever to load.

Of course, many sites don&#039;t work properly unless javascript is enabled, so I&#039;d turn it back on when I found the site with the information I wanted.

I&#039;m wondering what will happen to our online marketing if browsers offer preferences to disable some javascripts (such as ads or subscription forms) while enabling other types of scripts.

I never really thought about this until a couple of days ago.

Is it a serious problem? I really don&#039;t know.

Hope you&#039;re well and happy.

Act on your dream!

JD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Chuck,</p>
<p>Thanks for linking to my post about the NoScript addon for Firefox. </p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s bad enough that an addon can filter out javascript, but what about the people who turn off javascript in their browsers?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve done that when I wanted to get information fast and didn&#8217;t want to be slowed to a crawl because some pages have so many javascripts that have to be downloaded.</p>
<p>If I were on broadband, I probably would not have turned off javascript, but back here in the mountains where I live, all I have available is a slow dial-up connection and a page loaded with javascripts can take (seemingly) forever to load.</p>
<p>Of course, many sites don&#8217;t work properly unless javascript is enabled, so I&#8217;d turn it back on when I found the site with the information I wanted.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m wondering what will happen to our online marketing if browsers offer preferences to disable some javascripts (such as ads or subscription forms) while enabling other types of scripts.</p>
<p>I never really thought about this until a couple of days ago.</p>
<p>Is it a serious problem? I really don&#8217;t know.</p>
<p>Hope you&#8217;re well and happy.</p>
<p>Act on your dream!</p>
<p>JD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

