oh snap

[rone]

If you're using Firefox, you can block Snap previews, like what LiveJournal just added, as long as you have Adblock installed and block "http://shots.snap.com/*".  Disabling graphic previews at your journal's Viewing Options page doesn't help for the rest of the site, and the Options menu within each Snap preview that allows you to disable the stupid things doesn't work at all.

Looks like i might just stop paying for this journal after all.

Comments

[foaf.livejournal.com]

A few weeks ago, we told you about a new tool from Snap.com that provides visual previews on external links within your journal. Based on your positive response, we've enabled these graphics for Basic and Plus users.

OK, who responded positively?

I guess SA make money from the Snap previews? How does Snap make money?

[frosch.livejournal.com]

wordpress.com has had Snap for some time now. Difficult to imagine a lot of "want, want" from SA "customers", though.

At base, Snap is supposedly a search engine, trying whatever they can think of to grab eyeballs. For a while they had a news site that didn't suck as badly as some, and even had a couple of novel features I liked. Then they pulled the plug on it.

Snap is not anywhere near as irritating as cooliris. The bitch of it is, it's useless because it lives on the server side, so the miniscule percentage of sites that have it can't get you hooked.

Presumably both Snap and their hosts are incentivized to keep that percentage small, so that (a) the host enjoys maximal differentiation from the rest of the web, and (b) Snap registers in the consciousness of the user every time he sees it. Unfortunately for the user, Snap is a worthless trinket unless it's ubiquitous and readily disabled.

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

With any browser you can use Proxomitron (http://www.proxomitron.info/), a sweet little web-filter. Set it up as a webproxy, point your browser to it, and it speedily filters websites as you receive them, replacing the bad stuff with stuff your browser mostly ignores. Easy to set up exclusions, totally-blocked sites like the above, etc. Comes pre-install with loads of useful features, and that site is a clearinghouse for additional filters and such that people have added. Or so it says, I haven't looked. It's also stable as hell-- probably it crashed on my about twice since I started using it years and years ago.

[xlerb.livejournal.com]

The option menu thing Works For Me; I understand that it functions by setting a cookie from snap.com.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Thank you, you angel, you.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

"Based on your positive response" always means, "We think it's kind of lame, but it could be a money maker and now we can add another feature to the features bullet list, which is good for marketing."

There wouldn't be the taint of guilt associated with these sorts of business deals if they simply said, 'We added a new feature. Use it or don't," like they do for every addition they roll out that doesn't involve making or spending money. And I half suspect you all wouldn't be so grudgeful about it.

I still haven't seen this feature. I've only read bitching about it.

[schwa242.livejournal.com]

Why are you trying to make the internet less fun and interactive?

[kawgirl.livejournal.com]

For us non-geeks, why is this bad? I mean, I don't find it particularly good or anything. I'm just curious.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

Groovy. Thanks for pointing out this option.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

It's not bad. It's just obnoxious.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

jdev pointed it out here (http://syndicated.livejournal.com/hascheezburger/344746.html).

[manfire.livejournal.com]

I wondered who responded positively myself, then I found two such people (http://syndicated.livejournal.com/overheardnyc/2936783.html?thread=33465807#t33465807).

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

http://lord-dingsi.livejournal.com/73075.html