InformAction Forums

MyNameIsInigoMontoya wrote: Utter horseflop, Marine.

Phpbb message board software comes configured with common words excluded from the search function. Administrators can add additional "common words" to prevent them from showing up in search results. I know for a fact as a board admin myself that "adblock" is NOT in the default set. Someone had to add "Adblock" to the list. What would be the motivation of doing so? Someone who had a vested interest in preventing casual readers from finding out about the Adblock issue.

Although I appreciate your input, please keep in mind, which I had hoped as a self proclaimed admin you would have already, that the site for efficiency and for whatever reason else they felt when building the software decided that search terms that are returned beyond a certain number are not beneficial to the user and will refuse it. Try it with NoScript, you honestly suggesting we blocked our own software name? Please take the time to act honorably and speak honorably, this is not us blocking anything and has everything to do with the function built into the forum software, people need to stop trying to make something where nothing exists.

Heh, Adblock EasyList Forum: Common words in searches.
(I wasn't look for that site, it just came up in a Google search.)

search query ignored because too common words

How does search work? Part I: Table Review

Guest wrote:Of course your trick prevented this. That is what your redirect was for: tricking ABP users and forcing them too display the ads, no matter if they user own filters or the EasyList.

That's not the case, see below.

Guest wrote: Please explain me how you could differ between an EasyList user and an "real" ABP user with own filters

Well that's really simple: an EasyList user with no noscript.net-specific filters of his own have ABP enforcing EasyList's filters only.
EasyList's filters were worked around by noscript.net, thus he did see noscript.net's ads.

Guest wrote: then and how could a "real" ABP user block ads on your site(s) without adjusting the own filters over and over again.

If he didn't like those ads, he could do either of three things (from the hardest to the easiest):

1. Open the "Blockable Items" ABP panel, select the relevant rows and double click them to have Adblock Plus create the blocking filters.
2. Click on the "Block" tab over the relevant advertisement box. Again, Adblock Plus will create the filter.
3. The simplest of all: since we're talking about NoScript users, if they don't want to see ads there they can just click the NoScript icon and select "forbid googlesyndication.com".

He wouldn't need to adjust his filters "over and over again", because these methods (especially #3) would have worked forever.
Is that really so complicated?

What's wrong with automated advertisement removal?
#3 is not within adblock plus, and not all users visiting noscript.net have the script, I think that's the main reason. Cheers!

jogo wrote:not all users visiting noscript.net have the script, I think that's the main reason. Cheers!

Did you mean, "not all users visiting noscript.net have "NOSCRIPT"? Otherwise, the point isn't clear. Anyone visiting noscript.net gets the full range of choices: allow google-syndication, temp-allow (good if you want to help support that site but still keep your options easy at other GS-connected sites), don't allow, or add to Untrusted.
So I think you meant, "not all visitors have NS", correct? We hope that while there, they'll decide to install it. Otherwise, as Giorgio pointed out, there are several other ways to block the ads. I can think of a few more, but my job here is tech support for NS, not ad-block support. Cheers!

You were always jealous of ABP's popularity, weren't you? All other excuses are crap.

James wrote:You were always jealous of ABP's popularity, weren't you? All other excuses are crap.

http://noscript.net/faq#qa1_4

I've...actually not been involved with this until I read the note on the changelog for NoScript. I think the last revision I had was the *.91 rev that was before the whole mess...frankly, I don't turn firefox off or reboot my computer often.

That being said, I think there's a whole lot of overreaction over a whole lot of...absolutely nothing.

As someone who does coding on the side, what Giorgio did was...probably exactly what I would have done, only I don't have a whole panel full of people ready to jump with both feet.

I don't use Adblock.

I have no need for it.

NoScript is enough for me.

Lol, Giorgio you've screwed up big time and that can't be denied.

p.s.: I have just donated 50$ because I am a long time no-script user and the thingie is good.

p.p.s.: hai visto l'articolo su PI di oggi? forse faresti meglio a contattare la sua redazione per spiegare perché ti sei imbarcato in una gara a chi ce l'ha più lungo.

Guest wrote:Lol, Giorgio you've screwed up big time and that can't be denied.

I did not, in facts.

Guest wrote: p.s.: I have just donated 50$ because I am a long time no-script user and the thingie is good.

Many thanks

Guest wrote: p.p.s.: hai visto l'articolo su PI di oggi? forse faresti meglio a contattare la sua redazione per spiegare perché ti sei imbarcato in una gara a chi ce l'ha più lungo.

No, lo sto leggendo adesso e sembra che questo Maruccia non sia proprio imparziale (mi colpisce l'uso delle virgolette). Sai chi dovrei contattare esattamente?

Giorgio Maone wrote:

p.p.s.: hai visto l'articolo su PI di oggi? forse faresti meglio a contattare la sua redazione per spiegare perché ti sei imbarcato in una gara a chi ce l'ha più lungo.

No, lo sto leggendo adesso e sembra che questo Maruccia non sia proprio imparziale (mi colpisce l'uso delle virgolette). Sai chi dovrei contattare esattamente?

Il direttore responsabile è Paolo De Andreis. L'indirizzo email è pi[at]deandreis.it

Per la legge italiana (art. 8 della legge 47/1948) hai il diritto di replica.

Giorgio Maone wrote:

Guest wrote:Lol, Giorgio you've screwed up big time and that can't be denied.

I did not, in facts.

Something was lost in translation, Giorgio. "that can't be denied" is an expression which means "that is true". There's no implication that you or anyone else is denying it. Hope this helps. (Or was this already explained in Italian? I hope so.)

Guest wrote:Lol, Giorgio you've screwed up big time and that can't be denied.

p.s.: I have just donated 50$ because I am a long time no-script user and the thingie is good.

p.p.s.: hai visto l'articolo su PI di oggi? forse faresti meglio a contattare la sua redazione per spiegare perché ti sei imbarcato in una gara a chi ce l'ha più lungo.

I actually saw the "article" you are referring to and I was going to comment but my Italian isn't enough to get into a good argument with anyone and I wasn't sure leaving an English comment would be received too well. So I am glad that you brought it up and that Giorgio looked at it and I hope that he can reach the guy and give a proper reply.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:I actually saw the "article" you are referring to and I was going to comment but my Italian isn't enough to get into a good argument with anyone and I wasn't sure leaving an English comment would be received too well. So I am glad that you brought it up and that Giorgio looked at it and I hope that he can reach the guy and give a proper reply.

No please, don't post there. They will eat you alive and you will achieve nothing. For a long time, PI has been a battling ground for fanboys of all kinds. There have been wars between the IE and Firefox fans, the OS and Windows fans, etc. Any time an article is posted regarding a security issue in IE, in few hours the blog fills up with posts of people boasting about "how better Firefox is" and "how crap IE is " . Conversely, every time a security issue regarding Firefox is reported, the IE fans do the same and claim that Firefox is crap. In the latter case the classic rebuttal of the average Firefox fan is "I don't give a shit about that security flaw, I use No-Script and I am 100% safe, IE doesn't have No-Script so it is crap".

Now, you'll understand that, in that context, what Giorgio did only few days ago cause the war to escalate to a new level. We have people bashing Giorgio because "Firefox is crap, everyday you risk installing malware disguised as a legit extension, IE doesn't have extension so is better" or "Giorgio I thought NoScript was a great extension (and incidentally a good argument to use against the IE fans), you let me down, I hate you".

I appreciate your input and I wasn't going to because I didn't want to not be able to properly state my point due to the language barrier, not because I am afraid of making a stance. I know where you are coming from but I wasn't going to act like an immature child and sling mud or say something so abrasive, I was simply going to reply to the post that said (I am paraphrasing since it was in Italian) "Do not install NoScripts, its adware, installs hidden files on your machine and accesses your registry and will transmit your information like a virus." This was a blatant lie and frankly anyone in the right mind would laugh at that no matter whose side you are on but some people are actually stupid enough to take that and run with it, just look at the AMO reviews, comments made in this thread, comments on his blog and so on. Anyway, its moot since I had already decided against replying to it because giving anyone that stupid the dignification of a reply would have been like pissing in the wind anyway.