Giorgio Maone wrote:[*]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".[/list]
[...] what you wrote above is wrong and the opposite is correct.
No it isn't.
From tools like NoScript , ABP, ... I and many others expect that they come along with a Blacklist that blocks everything
This expectation is your misunderstanding, not a fault with NoScript. NoScript is a whitelist-driven security tool.
like tracking, tracing, ads, and other junk food (as far as it already known) out of the web by default!
All JS and active content in plugins is blocked by default in NoScript. This is the ultimate blacklist. It is much more extensive than any blacklist yet published, because it blacklists the whole of the web's JS and active content by default. The NoScript on-the-fly menu enables temporary, or permanent, removal of these blacklist items under direct control of the user, not under a third-party delayed intervention, thus pre-empting even junk not yet known to third-party blacklists.
We do not want to look up every site first,
You don't have to. Most sites work perfectly without any scripting.
specially as you forgot to ad an option to get information of blocked sites directly from within the menu where someone could blacklist those ...
The developer is working on a menu link to reference sites for those who don't have the ability, or the inclination, to open their own tabs and link to reference sites. It will save some typing errors from directing people down the wrong data paths.
I myself prefer to choose my own reference sites, when the occasional investigation for allowing active content becomes necessary. And, by extrapolation, addressing your above point about desiring blacklisting facilities, the last thing I would do is trust a blacklist maintained by a third party, where I have no clue from day to day whether it has been hacked. But then that's my own choice, isn't it.
( :-> don't want to write what I think they are, as an admin will remove it anyway)
Wrong again. Links to unsafe addresses and spam will be removed for browser's protection, otherwise this forum's moderators will argue until they're blue in the face, but they don't remove items of criticism. I have noticed edits for readability (which I don't agree with) but nothing is obliterated except spam and unsafe material.
We want to be safe from junk-food by default.
One man's junk food is another's gourmet delight.
And trying to put in code that do a workaround for those ads blacklisted from ABP was still nothing else than stupid.
No argument here. Possibly not for the same reasons as you are proposing, my criticism being about ethics and not effectiveness.
Normal computer users like me have a router that filters out unwanted stuff like googlesyndication.com before it even reaches the local net, then the personal firewall with ad and banner blocking is the next step, followed by a Hosts-File that sends nearly 96000 sites and IP-adresses to localhost. Noscript and ABP are only the last step in a long row to ensure that nothing of this kind ever reaches my browser and my eyes.
Congratulations on having a multi-pronged approach to filtering your own web experience.
NoScript is indeed complementary in all of these methods.
So normal people haven't even recognized that you play with the people that trust you, they didn't see any advertisement at all.
What proportion of users of NoScript would be your definition of "normal" users?
I don't know.
Do you have any data?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10