Page 2 of 2
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:42 am
by Thrawn
@Giorgio: Thanks for that rule
. I've added it to
the list I'm compiling.
@Tom T: I believe ABP
does block requests, and only resorts to element hiding for inline elements.
@access2godzilla: You're right, I did treat ad blocking & privacy together, because generally they involve similar issues and similar solutions (NoScript,
Adblock Plus, or
RequestPolicy, used in their usual modes, will handle both fairly well).
The idea of using surrogates to make sharing buttons work, without compromising privacy, even when blacklisted, is interesting, but I suspect it's non-trivial. Generally surrogates just do a no-op, but to make the buttons actually work, you'd probably have to write specific JavaScript to do the job of each script. If you want to take up that challenge, then OK, I'm sure people here would be interested (although most serious NoScript users would be OK to just forgo the buttons altogether).
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:59 pm
by Tom T.
Thrawn wrote:@Tom T: I believe ABP
does block requests, and only resorts to element hiding for inline elements.
I stand corrected, thanks. I have seen other mentions here of ABP only
hiding elements; perhaps those mentions failed to distinguish between page elements and third-party elements, or my feeble memory missed that part.
However, per your link, the inline element hiding is not simple, nor saving of resources:
Blocking requests is limited to removing advertisements that are technically not part of the web page but downloaded separately. Because of that limitation, there is also an additional mechanism called "element hiding" which allows hiding parts of web pages based on some unique properties. The disadvantage here is that even hidden elements are still downloaded and require processing time in the browser. Also, creating element hiding rules is more complicated because you have to select the right set of properties — only the elements that need to be hidden should have those, not the required page content. Element Hiding Helper extension makes this task easier, yet creating good element hiding rules still requires much experimenting.
I don't know what percent of ABP users are aware of this.
I still find that between NS and RP, plus Fx image-blocking (also only hide, not stop request), it's rare to see an ad, and without the complications of external filter subscriptions, etc. But ABP has many loyal users, so I'm sure they're finding value in it.
Again, thanks for the clarification.
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:50 am
by Thrawn
Tom T. wrote:
I still find that between NS and RP, plus Fx image-blocking (also only hide, not stop request), it's rare to see an ad, and without the complications of external filter subscriptions, etc. But ABP has many loyal users, so I'm sure they're finding value in it.
I agree. I use ABP without EasyList, but with the malware subscription, and also in case I want to manually block something.
To improve on Fx image blocking, how about an ABE rule at the end similar to:
Again, thanks for the clarification.
You're welcome
. I would have been surprised if an adblocker with so many loyal users, and a tech-savvy developer, still took the lazy approach of hiding-only after all this time. Theoretically it could probably be used to replace RequestPolicy, but you might as well use ABE.
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:42 am
by Tom T.
Thrawn wrote:To improve on Fx image blocking, how about an ABE rule at the end similar to:
Code: Select all
Site ^.*\.(jpg|png|gif)$ (.svg, .tiff, .jpeg, .bmp, and many others? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats
Deny
Uh, wouldn't that block *all* images, including the ones I want to see (pics of a product I might buy from an online retailer, say), or
need to see?
Having seen your new avatar, how would I exist were it to disappear?
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:00 am
by Thrawn
Tom T. wrote:Thrawn wrote:To improve on Fx image blocking, how about an ABE rule at the end similar to:
Code: Select all
Site ^.*\.(jpg|png|gif)$ (.svg, .tiff, .jpeg, .bmp, and many others? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats
Deny
Uh, wouldn't that block *all* images, including the ones I want to see (pics of a product I might buy from an online retailer, say), or
need to see?
Indeed. You'd have to add exceptions above it. Or maybe 'Accept from SELF++'. But it
would block the requests, not just hide the images.
Having seen your new avatar, how would I exist were it to disappear?
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:15 am
by Tom T.
Thrawn wrote:Tom T. wrote:Uh, wouldn't that block *all* images, including the ones I want to see (pics of a product I might buy from an online retailer, say), or need to see?
Indeed. You'd have to add exceptions above it. Or maybe 'Accept from SELF++'. But it
would block the requests, not just hide the images.
Some such retailers do indeed import pics from elsewhere -- perhaps from the manufacturer. Or from cloudfront or, what was it? Oh yeah -- Akamai.
(Which requires RP permission, of course.)
Overall, I think it's too much trouble. Most (inanimate, non-executable) logos, product pics on a page, etc. don't bother me. It's the ads that do, and we've pretty much covered that.
Re: Request for additional surrogates
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:09 am
by Thrawn
By the way,
The OP might be interested in page-level surrogates, but using them correctly could again be a lot of work.
Summary is at
http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... =10&t=7305