Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
Ian

Re: that's pathethic

Post by Ian » Mon May 04, 2009 7:46 am

GµårÐïåñ wrote:
Guest wrote:If you still think, that author of this "extension" can be trusted, then please look here: http://imgur.com/2QGAo.jpg
type adblock in search box wrote:The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: adblock.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.


what does this have to do with the author? This is a function and limitation setting of the forum software, not an intentional blocking of that term. It is unfairly inflammatory and insincere to try and paint it as something it is not.


I think is the author of the post not to be trusted as if he/she tried "NoScript" as a search term he/she would have realised that it's got nothing to do with Maone but with the phpBB forum software and its settings.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090401 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Shiretoko/3.5b4pre

Another guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Another guest » Mon May 04, 2009 8:07 am

Mc wrote:Why don't ABP people stop AMO reviews like that, try it at least:

Viruses in NoScript addon
von jimhap am 3.05.2009
I've just downloaded the "new" version and worse - it installs malicious viruses/toolbars on my computer!

Do not download if you hate viruses and malware!

Use another addon, like AdBlock Plus to enable security.


I don't mean to defend such reviews. I'd just like to point out, that you can find idiots anywhere, and that misleading ratings like the above are nothing that "ABP people" can be blamed for in general.

AMO, Reviews for Adblock Plus wrote:[one star] by timclark on May 3, 2009
Found it interfered with with small useful sites with subtle, ok Ads. Too much over kill for my taste

(...)

doesn't work!
[one star] by JimSmithPirate on May 3, 2009
Bullshit. I installed it. I have firefox 2.0. It doesn't work. It doesn't show up on screen. Nothing happens. SUCK!

(...)

[one star] by Deleted User on May 2, 2009
Adware, malware.

(...)

Cuts revenue.
[one star] by ChrnoGuardian on April 30, 2009
Great add-on but cut important revenue generation.


p.s.: Easylist is still breaking the forum's formatting buttons. Just in case this hasn't been noticed yet.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/2.0.0.17 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Another guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Another guest » Mon May 04, 2009 9:15 am

Another guest wrote:p.s.: Easylist is still breaking the forum's formatting buttons. Just in case this hasn't been noticed yet.


Sorry, I meant "Filter von Dr. Evil". But we all know that Easylist is evil, hence the mix-up. ;-)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/2.0.0.17 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Tester

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Tester » Mon May 04, 2009 11:41 am

You know I'm not really a supporter of your way of thinking or revenue-making, but still I have a suggestion to make:
Just to calm down the situation a bit, wouldn't it be good to close this thread now or then soon?
It has been said anything anyway several times already. And this thread is so long already that no one really sees any structure anymore.
BTW: Wladimir did so already on his site.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10

Guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Guest » Mon May 04, 2009 11:58 am

BigMKnows wrote:
Tester wrote:The false positives were provoked by the noscript-author himself through his attempts to fight adblock at any cost. That's what you get. That's what every other site would get. That is the reason why other sites don't even bother to start to play this foolish game, that they can only lose


Actually, that's not true. If you read the EasyList forum, they take (or DID take) a conservative approach. For example, Hulu changed their policies and forced a 30 second wait time when you block their ads. Without ad blocking, some of the ads are only 10 or 15 seconds long, so blocking the ads ends up being more troublesome than allowing them. So the EasyList folks removed filters for Hulu, because they'd rather not "break" the site for their users. You can always add Hulu filters on your own, but they are not standard. Of course, that was Rick752's decision. Now there's a new maintainer.

So I think Ares2 DID overreact by breaking Maone's site.

It was never Ares' intention to break Giorgio's sites! All he wanted is to block the ads there. Giorgio kept changing the URL of them and Ares fixed them afterwards. Giorgio used a very similar URL for the ads like the link for the development build and that's why Ares filters hid the link for the development build.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10

Another guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Another guest » Mon May 04, 2009 2:25 pm

Guest wrote:It was never Ares' intention to break Giorgio's sites! All he wanted is to block the ads there.


The end does not justify the means, neither for Ares2 nor for Giorgio.

All Ares2 wanted, is to block the ads; all Girgio wanted, is to display them. Neither of the two intentions is by itself objectionable, but both Ares2 and Giorgio chose the wrong means to achieve their goals.

Ares2 was aware of the fact and fully accepted, that for subscribers of his list, as a sideffect of his ongoing attempts to block the ads, parts of Giorgio's website would at least temporarily be broken - and not because Giorgio modified the code of his sites, but because Ares2's regular expressions got so universal, that collateral damage was inevitable. No matter how much of a cat-and-mouse game preceeded the final steps taken by Ares2, those final actions were unjustified and wrong. If you don't find a way to block the ads on some website without significantly hurting the regular functions of that website, then you need to accept defeat until you find some solution. You cannot go berserk and start disciplining the webmaster with any means available to you., because is is usually not in the interest of your list's subscribers.

I have no intention of backing Giorgio's actions. I believe they were malicious, stupid and wrong and that his depiction of events is still flawed and deceptive ("the noscript.net, flashgot.net, informaction.com and hackademix.net web sites (...) were broken by a virulent attack from EasyList", http://noscript.net/faq#qa3_21).

But in my opinion there is also no reason for glorifying Ares2's behaviour. He, too, overreacted and failed to do justice to the mandate that was entrusted to him.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/2.0.0.17 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Guest » Mon May 04, 2009 2:49 pm

"...with No questions asked" .....

Talking about a big asses boy ?
You better replied to the questions asked.

Please pal, stop wasting people's time with your naggy dumb tool,
there are much better alternatives, which people can trust.

I wonder who uses a 'block-all Javascript except mine' tool anyway,
must be the dumbest asses on earth, since it breaks every website.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4) Gecko/20090423 Firefox/3.5b4

Guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Guest » Mon May 04, 2009 3:39 pm

@Another guest
Then I wonder why Giorgio changed his site when EasyList had his very first filters that did not break anything because he says he is ok with blocking whatever a user wants on any site:
Giorgio Maone wrote:I'm all for granting users the power of blocking whatever they want on any site...
viewtopic.php?p=2801#p2801
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10

User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8733
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Giorgio Maone » Mon May 04, 2009 3:50 pm

Guest wrote:"...with No questions asked" .....

Talking about a big asses boy ?
You better replied to the questions asked.

With no questions asked by NoScript (e.g. "Do you want to remove the filterset?").
Regarding the questions asked by the users, I did answer.

Guest wrote:@Another guest
Then I wonder why Giorgio changed his site when EasyList had his very first filters that did not break anything because he says he is ok with blocking whatever a user wants on any site

Easylist is not my user, indeed. If my real user (you know, the one browsing my site, not Ares2) wanted to block my ads, he could either using Adblock or NoScript in two clicks. My "trick" didn't prevent this.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

MyNameIsInigoMontoya

Re: that's pathethic

Post by MyNameIsInigoMontoya » Mon May 04, 2009 4:57 pm

GµårÐïåñ wrote:
Guest wrote:If you still think, that author of this "extension" can be trusted, then please look here: http://imgur.com/2QGAo.jpg
type adblock in search box wrote:The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: adblock.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.


what does this have to do with the author? This is a function and limitation or setting of the forum software, not an intentional blocking of that term. It is unfairly inflammatory and insincere to try and paint it as something it is not.


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.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7459
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: that's pathethic

Post by therube » Mon May 04, 2009 5:14 pm

Guest wrote:If you still think, that author of this "extension" can be trusted, then please look here: http://imgur.com/2QGAo.jpg
type adblock in search box wrote:The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: adblock.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.


what does this have to do with the author? This is a function and limitation setting of the forum software, not an intentional blocking of that term. It is unfairly inflammatory and insincere to try and paint it as something it is not.

I think is the author of the post not to be trusted as if he/she tried "NoScript" as a search term he/she would have realised that it's got nothing to do with Maone but with the phpBB forum software and its settings.


Search... Needs Revisions

PS: It was not these posts in particular that prompted my post, but rather searches that I was performing that were not returning the results I was looking for.

Ah sugar daddies. Look what else the board does, "You may embed only 3 quotes within each other., & I'm not good with quotes so I'm just going to mangle the above quotes until it flies.

PPS: Instead of arguing about it, you could have posted a thread requesting a change :-).
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090403 SeaMonkey/1.1.16

mh

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by mh » Mon May 04, 2009 5:54 pm

After reading the Hackademix post, I've gone back and done a new review on AMO to overwrite my old 1-star review. This is one of those things that you just know has impacted Giorgio enough that it's never going to so much as cross his mind again, so I can say I'm pretty confident that there will be no more issues :)

One thing about the ads. Thing is, if people are running ABP with a restrictive filter set, it's likely that they don't want to see ads, and trying to force them trough is just going to tick the people off. Is it possible to detect that the ads were hidden, and if they were, rather than try to force them through, instead display an additional donation request message? You might find people more sympathetic to that sort of solution.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8733
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: that's pathethic

Post by Giorgio Maone » Mon May 04, 2009 6:31 pm

MyNameIsInigoMontoya wrote: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.

Is "noscript" in that list instead?
Someone had to add "Adblock" to the list.

You're utterly wrong, see below.
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.

This is baseless slander, especially if you're really a board admin (even though we've seen worse stuff around lately).

I've got almost no phpBB experience (this is my first installation and it's less than one month old). However I can tell you with absolute confidence that common words are automatically added to the list according to the frequency they appear in the forum posts.
I'd say NoScript is one of the most common for obvious reasons, and if adblock was not one week ago (I can't tell) it's surely now (I hope you don't need it to be explained further).
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Guest » Mon May 04, 2009 6:48 pm

Giorgio Maone wrote:
Guest wrote:@Another guest
Then I wonder why Giorgio changed his site when EasyList had his very first filters that did not break anything because he says he is ok with blocking whatever a user wants on any site

Easylist is not my user, indeed. If my real user (you know, the one browsing my site, not Ares2) wanted to block my ads, he could either using Adblock or NoScript in two clicks. My "trick" didn't prevent this.

Please explain me how you could differ between an EasyList user and an "real" ABP user with own filters then and how could a "real" ABP user block ads on your site(s) without adjusting the own filters over and over again.

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.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10

Guest

Re: Latest NoScript version (1.9.2) breaks Adblock Plus

Post by Guest » Mon May 04, 2009 7:52 pm

Guest wrote:Then I wonder why Giorgio changed his site when EasyList had his very first filters that did not break anything


I believe that he has every right to change the code of his site in order to make it less easy for ad-blocking-utilities to remove ads from his website.

I just expect him to be honest about it and to refrain from using malicious tactics while pursuing his goals.

Some actions, such as messing with the AdBlockPlus-code, are intolerable.
Some are bad style and capable of undermining the trust of people who may actually show (financial) support, example given: blocking Ghostery-notifications.

Trying to outwit adblockers on the other hand I only consider to be a (possibly bad) business decision - nothing else. It's not evil and in my eyes doesn't justify breaking a website with overly tight filter rules. Forcing ads upon freelancers may generate some extra income from ads, or maybe it rather pisses people off and doesn't encourage them to click on the ads, while making you lose feedback, donations, etc. Who can tell for sure?

I do understand, that filterlists are a problem to people whose business is based on ads. No longer is it just the skilled nerd, who blocks your ads, but more or less everyone starts doing it, because it's so easy. Even people who are actually not very bothered by the ads are beginning to block them, cause it requires no skills or effort. And when EasyList starts taking a more rigorous approach to blocking Giorgio's ads than it did in the past, I do understand, that he is concerned with the idea, that a lot of people, who subscribed to EasyList and possibly happily tolerated looking at his ads in the past, are now being lost as potential customers. Trying to bypass EasyList (in a white hat manner = modifying the website's code!) in the hope of winning back some potential customers at the price of pissing off more rigorous AdBlock-users who are likely to never contribute anyway, is not by default an absurd or inexcusable idea.

And this is definitely not a trivial, black-or-white topic.

When I said:

Another guest wrote:and not because Giorgio modified the code of his sites, but because Ares2's regular expressions got so universal, that collateral damage was inevitable.


I did not mean to give the impression, that no modifications have been made by Giorgio. He did change the code. But in my opinion those code-changes were legitimate and no matter how frustrating they must have been to Ares2, I don't think it justified breaking regular functionality of the site by introducing über-tight blocking-rules to EasyList. It was not Giorgio's code, that ultimately broke the website, but the introduction of a new set of filtering rules. It's Ares2 who broke the site for AdBlockPlus users and not Giorgio.

The cat-and-mouse game that was going on is the daily business of advertisers and ad-blockers. I expect both sides to play fair and to be honest about their aims. Blocking ads so tightly, that regular functionality of a website is affected and accepting that as justifiable collateral damage is not something that I endorse and it is not something, that I believe to be in the interest of the majority of subscribers of EasyList.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/2.0.0.17 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Locked