Page 1 of 1

Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:29 pm
by gggirlgeek
Hi,

Just wanted to make sure the developers, as well as other users, have seen this article so that they can prevent attempts to block noScript users.

Bonus: Dealing With NoScript Users Article discussing what Web desingers can do to prevent losing ad-revenue money from users who go out of their way to block ads.

The response in the comments is outrage in overwhelming numbers. :D

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate Noscipt, and the feeling of control it gives me. THANK YOU, team! I will specifically click your ads to help out.

Re: Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:41 pm
by therube
There is a a point to everything said there.
There are even ads on NoScript.net.
Their workaround for NoScript users can be circumvented already simply by enabling NoScript's, Forbid META redirections inside <NOSCRIPT> elements. Redirects can be blocked even more generally from within the browser itself.
And as with everything, there are always tradeoffs.

Re: Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:56 am
by Tom T.
gggirlgeek wrote:I cannot tell you how much I appreciate Noscipt, and the feeling of control it gives me. THANK YOU, team! I will specifically click your ads to help out.

Thank you for the kind words. They're very much appreciated.

Thank you also for your desire to support NoScript (which, as therube says, has for a long time had capability to defeat the redirect described there). We have had some users object to the ads. I've pointed out that a small donation from each user, of any amount at all, would no doubt be sufficient to eliminate the ads -- for a valuable freeware product, not just a web site or blog. I notice that the article and some commenters said the same thing: Politely ask users to contribute whatever they can, large or small.

The ad business has only itself to blame, as noted in that article: The pop-ups, dancing frogs, scams, malware, blinking/animation/Flash video, etc.

Note that NoScript's ABE feature lets you choose to allow various ad scripts at the sites you wish to support, while blocking them elsewhere, automatically. As some commenters said, if a site *earns* my support with valued content *and unobtrusive, non-offensive ads*, I can whitelist that. Do please point that out there, should you wish to make a comment.

Here is an example:

Code: Select all

Site .google-syndication.com
Accept from .favesite1.com .favesite2.com .favesite3.com
Deny

This lets google's ad script run at the listed sites, who have *earned* my support, and nowhere else.
If I find google's ads offensive, I could substitute any of the ad agencies listed in this sticky: SOME SITES YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO ALLOW.

Thanks again for pointing us to that thread! :)

Re: Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:19 am
by gggirlgeek
Thanks for the info about Forbidding meta redirections.... I have it checked, and do use the Firefox tweak, but I never knew what the Noscript option did precisely. (Honestly, I just check them all unless they give me more grief than I'm willing to deal with.)

I particularly appreciate Noscript because it cleans up the web, making it accessible for my disability, and making it MUCH less offensive. When I have to go without it I feel like a little kid lost in a bad neighborhood. The difference is shocking. I think I've been viewing the Web through rose-colored glasses for years now. :)

Re: Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:31 am
by gggirlgeek
Tom T.: Thanks for your additional tips too. I've been looking for an easier way to support my beloved sites. Tasteful sites DO deserve the revenue.

Question: I am using a firefox tweak to block referrers in one of my Firefox profiles used for privacy. Will your ABE trick work without referrers? (I realize the ads won't be personalized. I'll get over it. ;) )

Re: Has the Noscript team seen this article?

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:23 am
by Tom T.
gggirlgeek wrote:I particularly appreciate Noscript because it cleans up the web, making it accessible for my disability, and making it MUCH less offensive. When I have to go without it I feel like a little kid lost in a bad neighborhood.

Why would you ever go without it? Not rhetorical -- you can even get Microsoft Updates via Firefox. It's a long thread, with an updated link in the OP to a condensed version that accords with changes in MS URL, etc.

Of course you don't have to share what is your disability, but we have another enthusiastic member here who is 100% visually impaired. Also loves NoScript. I love it even more, because I *can* see the dancing-frog ads, but would rather not. :grin:
Question: I am using a firefox tweak to block referrers in one of my Firefox profiles used for privacy. Will your ABE trick work without referrers? (I realize the ads won't be personalized. I'll get over it. ;) )

I strongly recommend RefControl add-on. No tweaks needed.

ABE works independently of such things. You choose the advertisers and the sites you wish to allow.

I just double-checked at one of my fave entertainment sites. (not tech-related!) I temp-allowed amazon script, then clicked the ad. The URL of the ad included the host site, but not with the usual ? or &ref= etc. In other words, they knew whom to pay, despite the RefControl add-on. Which is cool. If I didn't want them to know, I wouldn't allow their script in the first place.

The ad was "personalized" to the extent that it related to the content of the page being viewed. Also cool. But it wasn't "personalized" based on a 968-page dossier of my browsing history, etc.

I never knew what the Noscript option did precisely. (Honestly, I just check them all unless they give me more grief than I'm willing to deal with.)
I check everything on the Embeddings tab, and most of the rest, too. If the NoScript FAQ don't provide an answer, feel free to ask here.