GµårÐïåñ wrote:Can you elaborate as to why its disappointing and ridiculous?
Giorgio Maone wrote:As you can see it's a content stylesheet deployed by a web site to style the web site content itself.
As one can see, there is code in the content stylesheet that styles content, which is not in place until Ghostery injects it. The obvious intention of that code is to prevent ghostery from displaying its notification-box. It's not as if Ghostery was accidently running into pre-existing content that had another purpose.
Giorgio Maone wrote:If the coders of that extension did their homework and learned to how use chrome notification boxes to deliver their notifications (like NoScript does), (...)
How is the code injection hurting the website, other than providing the information, that the website makes use of Google AdSense? What difference would it make if Ghostery used a chrome-notification-box other than making it more difficult (if not impossible) for you and other webmasters to mess with it? You seem to get a kick out of being engaged in arms races, without thinking about how your actions affect user-experience. Blocking the notifcation-box means taking something from your visitors which they wanted to see without giving anything in return. It's malicious and serves no purpose other than concealing the website's use of Google AdSense, which isn't much of a secret in the first place.
Giorgio Maone wrote:rather than injecting content with ugly purple boxes and obscuring random parts of the injected web page with no real purpose, (...)
GµårÐïåñ wrote:The content injection actually attaches and blocks legitimate content on a site
Ghostery's notification bubble hovers over the right corner of the website for some seconds. It does not break the website and it does not permanently obfuscate its content. In fact, the way Ghostery provides its information to its users is probably less intrusive than any chrome-notification-box could ever be. A chrome-notification-box would also obfuscate the site's content for the duration of its appearance and would drag the user's attention away from your site as well.
And regarding the alleged ugliness of ghostery's notification bubble: how is that of any concern? Do you think NoScript's placeholders are beautiful? Do you think every webdesigner, whose content you replace with them, shares your opinion? Don't the placeholders "attach [to] and block legitimate content on a site" as well? Did that keep you from implementing them? No? Why not?
So why do bother with ghostery's notification box? The users who install the add-on are fully aware of how it works and what it looks like. To patronize those users and to break their add-on with regard to esthetic concerns is just plain wrong.
NoScript, among other functions, blocks webbugs and thus makes a clear stand for transparency and against secret actions behind users' backs. Yet when it comes to your own website and your ad-revenues, anything seems to be more important than the things NoScript stands for, and even the alleged ugliness of a notification-box suddenly has higher priority than visitors' expressed interest in being informed about what's going on on a website.
GµårÐïåñ wrote:Please stop trying to find every little thing to paint in a tawdry manner and use as a weapon of blame.
It's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to find out, wether recent actions of Giorgio were in fact a unique sad mistake or rather the result of an attitude, that may cause similar wrongdoings in the future.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/184.108.40.206 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)