Messages - ital2 [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23next
16
@cranoscopial: I had not even seen that typo, but your discovery is just another hint at developers to run some spelling checker at the end (most Germans do so, and then their texts are full of "sie" instead of "Sie", and vice versa, "sie" being "they" and "Sie" being "your"...).

As for the work this aligner obviously isn't willing to do, of course there are dots, "full stops", at the end of sentences, but also after abbreviations, but after most abbreviations, the next word begins with a lower case letter; most sentences begin with an uppercase one, and as for ^r^n, ^r and ^n, which, especially for text downloaded from the web, create havoc for any script, I first normalize them to ^n, then run the script, then normalize them to ^r^n; any aligner should do so, too, instead of trying to cope with all 3 variants at the same time which is unsuccessful anyway.

Then, there are lengths, German and French being some 10 or 15 p.c. longer than the corresponding English text in most cases for example, so an aligner, while taking such differences into account, should compare character counts, too, before deciding if a dot is a full stop (new sentence; new visual "paragraph" on screen then if the users opts for that) or not; other simple tricks could apply, too, and then you minimize errors of such a tool, in this really simple task.

Btw, it's debatable if the systematic left block - right block paradigm is really optimized for every use case, I'd prefer the sentences being one beneath the other, then a blank line, the two "blocks" being distinguished by different color, but it's perfectly conceivable there be aligners who do it that way already.

But anyway, the developer in question obviously makes a lot of fuss around a (what's more, very simple) core task of any aligner, AND tries to "sell" that miss as an advantage of his tool, on top of this. Also, there is no mass market for aligners, so he faces prospects who should be able to see this them misleading of his, and that makes it all the less comprehensible even. ;-)

17
@wraith808: I don't get this. In fact, the page itself (javascript) sends data back, telling the respective server that the ads have not been displayed, or something along these lines. Or/and the other way round, in case of successful display of the ads, the page sends some "ok" string (which may be quite elaborate, unfortunately).

So I understand that these "false positives" I'm asking for would be individual for each such site, which is why this could only be done for those "big" sites of if not universal then at least national appeal (in big nations), like the examples I gave above. Also, the site owners would frequently "update", i.e. modify those "got thru" or "were banned" strings; it'd be a little bit like downloading from Flickr and the like; frequent ad-blocker updates would be needed for given "standard sites", by subscription, for once.

Site owners could monitor what the ad-blockers did, by running a dummy pc with those ad-blockers installed; ad-blockers' developers could monitor the changes in the sent-back strings by running pc's with and without ad-blocking.

Sites would change those strings several times a day in the end; ad-blockers would not keep up (with sending updates).

So that's probably why that isn't done, but if it's NOT a mass market, but a quite confidential one, it'd be doable - the question arises of course how long a reasonably-priced such offer would remain confidential...

(Additional problem: The site owners could encode those strings in some individualized way, according to the page's url, title or the like; basic problem here: we all have accepted that downloaded pages (or even before download) also SENT BACK data; if that was not the case, they simply wouldn't know.)



EDIT: Misunderstanding since I hadn't had in mind everything from my original post. You mean that for processing the advert part(s) of the page, the ad-blocker should sent the page, from the user's pc to the ad-blocker's server, then send the purified core part back; what I had in mind was something like "whiting it all" (since the data is there already, so make it invisible at least, and non-interactive). -

I had in mind that this processing of the ads would be quite simple, technically, and that the ad-blocker, installed as browser add-on, would have the necessary code for doing this, installed on the user's pc: just enough javascript in order to successfully identify the ad-parts, and make them invisible.

Of course, and according to my further thoughts above, it's to be feared that this "whiting" is then detected by some (upgraded, for this new necessity) page code.

What I had in mind, was something less consequential than what's done today, and which would be less detectable, but I suppose that's illusionary, the (spiced-up) page code would be able to detect pixel colors (or its own code to be invalidated), and then some preset, encoded string could be sent.

Of course, there could be another ad-blocking trick being envisioned: NOT interfering up to the full page being displayed (so there is a slight annoyance for the user indeed), THEN "do-it-all", and block any further sending back info to the server, like "bad connection", up to the user asking for some new page, and then ditto as before - in this scenario, the server(s) would get that AFTER each full download, the connection gets bad, and make their conclusions...

Or then, creating (user-pc-sided) a virtual representation, and infering from that, the real one, the server(s) not "getting" that the real representation on the user's screen isn't identical to the virtual page they will have created.

In this context, let's remind ourselves that the ads often come from third-party servers, and that was the aspect I hadn't in my mind; you mean that for bandwidth minimization, the ad-blockers block the download of the ads already.

Hence:

I think there should be possible technical means for those prominent, "special" sites, that you can NOT see without ads today: If I want to see them currently (with a browser exception or in another browser), I have to convene to any download they want to force upon me, anyway, SO the ad-blockers, in these instances, by special option, should NOT block the download (i.e. my traffic would be the same anyway), just block the display (and the interactivity, too) - possibly, there ARE some means for this, along my ideas here, as soon as ad-blockers free themselves from the conception that blocking ads necessarily implies blocking their download, too.

Considering there are "prominent" sites which at the end of the day would be worth the traffic, just not all the visual annoyance.

18
Last comment on Bits for that: http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/nova-text-aligner-2/in=search-for-software :


"The page linked as "Website" above goes into length criticising the competition, stating (my wordings here) that the automatisms there (sentences, paragraphs) do it wrongly, and then you must do it manually anyway, and thus, with Nova, which forces you to do it manually to begin with, that's the real way to do it. The page states this manual way of doing it in Nova is a simple as it gets, but it doesn't tell us HOW this process is facilitated by Nova; also, and with all due respect, I would like to know WHERE the alleged advantage of Nova (except for the price of a mere 10$ of course) over the competition lies, since logically, even if the manual processing in Nova is easy/simple:

If some of the automated competitors do 8 new paragraph dividers right and 1 wrong, I immediately see this on screen, from the faulty length - this being a big difference with for example OCR where I would need to read the whole text attentively, in order to look up processing errors -, I put the mouse cursor there, then either delete the faulty paragraph divider, or insert the missing one - also, I firmly believe that such a mistake will not occur once a page with the automated competition but perhaps once every third or fourth page or the like -; at the same time, with Nova, I must put in all the 9 dividers of my example manually, be that easy or not.

So from what I conceive, Nova just seems to be grossly inferior to its competitors and does not present the alleged - and NOT explained - advantage over its competition at all, but I'd welcome any pertinent information.

Would it be too harsh to say that from what I read from the current text on the linked page, it seems that text tries to turn a big disadvantage into a feigned advantage, hoping readers will not grasp the amount of additional work they will have to do in Nova, over what they would have to do with some competitor's tool? Fact is, I read that text with interest and then had to realize it didn't answer any of my questions but just built up something I felt like being allegedly illusionary expectations in order to blur my discernment."


Referring to this page: https://nova-text-aligner.soft112.com/ : "NOVA Text Aligner is a tool designed to make manual text alignment as easy and simple as possible. It doesn't use any automatic paragraph or sentence alignment algorithms. Why? Because there are things where a human can not be replaced and parallel text editing is such a thing." and blah blah blah on that matter - no comment from the developer.

Please note the logical bomb in the little text cited: He states that there is no alignment (!) automatism in his tool, and for justifying this, he claims "a human can not be replaced" in "parallel text EDITING" (my formatting): In order to justify his not having done his homework for step 1, he pretends no tool of this kind could help with step 2, and you might agree that these steps are clearly distinct, for once.

Would you buy software from a developer who's so deeply at war with logic? Or am I too harsh here? ;-)

19
Thank you, both of you, and as always, Shades' contributions really constructive!

"Also, whenever it is possible, I do not click on the 'Accept cookies' button from a web site." - I said so here, some weeks ago, in some other context, complaining about the fact that then, often, just 2/3, or even just the half of the screen height is left for my reading! ;-(

As for propaganda sites (formerly "Newspapers" ' sites) I don't have access without allowing ads:

http://www.bild.de (Springer for the masses, but for the "very latest news", i.e. the things that have happened within the very last 2 hours or so, they're often really informative; the alternative for this being dailymail.com, though - but then, no day without "royals" et al. on dailymail.com, and that makes me vomit)

http://www.faz.de (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 30 years ago, that was the best (continental) European newspaper, together with Le Monde, at the time; both are finished now as serious information sources)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de (Süddeutsche Zeitung, informally "Prantl-Prawda", was very good, too, before Prantl as editor-in-chief)

http://www.spiegel.de (Der Spiegel, world-best news-weekly 30 years ago; at the time, Der Spiegel was sufficient reason for some to learn German, not kidding! - their incredible, mythical, multi-km-broad archives were the starting point for my interest in information management / technology; today, their site - the printed publication remains slightly more acceptable in parts - is almost-pure propaganda shit; it's from Bertelsmann, the censorship specialists - not kidding here either, they've made a business model out of censoring)

So why my interest in these sites then? Since the above leaves me with http://www.focus.de for getting some Germany-specific news, and the latter is a brainwashing site for 5-year-olds.


Again, I think a good ad-blocker should SIMULATE that the ads have been displayed, or then, stop any page-specific feedback altogether / send false data back.


Not knowing about AdGuard's possible advantages over the "free" alternatives. Again setting up an alternative system for such crap use like trialing software; my XP on that one just not being successful anymore with most modern software; last time I had bought a cheap W7 Pro version from some British crook, it seemed to work fine, I left a nice appreciation for the (commercial) vendor, and then, after some 30 days, my W7 stopped working, the MS screen telling me it wasn't legitimate, and then the vendor never wrote back upon my several reminders.

So never leave positive appreciations for somebody on ebay before 55 days!

(Currently installing some cheap W10 Pro version from some German commercial vendor (English version again - with any other version you just multiply problems of all kinds, not the least not remembering by which search terms you'll get help) just asking me to pay again by PayPal, after me having paid by PayPal upon purchase - let's see if PayPal took the money and ran, or if just vendor's accounting is shit.)

(I have to admit that when installing-activating the Brit W7, I had not thought about setting my VPN to Minuscule Britain, assuming MS - which doesn't pay much taxes within the EU but presumably insists on "users" only using their OS within the country of original commercialization - stops W versions if they detect they've left their "original" country, so this time, for activation of my new "alternative W10" now, I'll set it to Germany then; if after that, they even check for use later use, I'll be probably screwed again, sooner of later, not remembering to do ALL web access by alleged-German VPS afterwards, should certainly make it the default setting to begin with, in order to minimize risks...)

(So much info is floating around; in real life, you just happen to not remember all of it at every little moment.)

20
"Ideally, we would use a Wiki for those...". Not.

Pages: prev1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23next
Go to full version