Author Topic: AdBlock Plus To Not Block All Ads (Read 63,013 times)

IainB · « **on:** December 12, 2011, 11:18 PM »

What a surprise! (NOT): AdBock Plus To Not Block All Ads

Just in case, I have changed my FF add-ons settings to switch OFF Automatic Updates for:

AdBlock Plus
Element Hiding Helper for AdBlock Plus

Ath · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:23 PM »

That's as sure a way to oblivion as putting a knife in the heart with a slow force

IainB · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:32 PM »

Yes. I find this depressing - "fixing" AdBlock like this, I mean. Somebody fixed JunkBuster, years ago - I guess it was too good at what it did.
Wait for all the apologistic spin about "It's really not such a bad thing, y'know!"

Just saw the spelling mistake "AdBock Plus To Not Block All Ads" - I copied the misspelling straight from the link. Didn't notice it at the time.
Maybe AdBlock is delivered from a South African company now?

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2011, 11:37 PM »

I think Adblock has had trouble blocking the Wikipedia campaign boxes lately. I think you can sludge your way with things like ElementHider (spelling?) but still, it's an ad,and it's ugly, go away.

mrainey · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2011, 12:31 AM »

This says you can opt out.

http://dottech.org/freeware-reviews/25096/adblock-plus-new-v2-0-allows-acceptable-ads-on-websites/

40hz · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2011, 01:23 AM »

Wonder what "inducement" (or threat) was offered to the creators of AdBlock to "fix" how their product operated? Because I strongly doubt this decision was made purely after a philisophical discussion around the company cracker-barrel. The somewhat defensive tone in the announcement leads me to believe AdBlock is getting something in return for making this change.

It's an annoying change in policy even though I permit ads from most sites I visit regulary for exactly the justifications given. But that's *MY* choice, and not one made for me by AdBlock.

In the last few months I've made a conscious effort to spend far less time on the web than I previously have. Mainly because I'm getting so sick of the commercialism (and juvenile crassness) I'm starting to see creeping in everywhere.

Maybe I'll just need to cut back a bit more going forward. $:-\$

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2011, 01:40 AM »

Currently doesn't seem to apply to the Chrome extension.

There is also an opt out so you can use it as before - you just need to say so.

rgdot · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2011, 01:56 AM »

Million dollar idea for me or you or someone...directory, network of sites that never have any ads. Sort of a 'good' version of WOT

mahesh2k · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2011, 06:03 AM »

Ghostery also works on the same idea. They're now part of Evidon, that asks users to opt-out of ads via ghostery. They do pass few ads through the filter thought, especially some of the contextual ads and few text link ads.

It'll take some time for few geeks to come up with yet another extension for ad-blocking and it is needed irrespective of any defense from publisher and media giants. This is because if they start corporate lobbying in ad display programs with these ad blockers then small publishers are surely going to get crushed into this if big publishers and media companies manipulate such ad blockers.

tomos · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2011, 08:32 AM »

I'll probably stick with it, see how it goes. I often have tried allowing adds for sites I like, but if they have blinking/"non-static" adds I block again.

Their plan is to allow:

Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)
Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images
At most one script that will delay page load (in particular, only a single DNS request)

Would be nice if I could either

1] block everything by default, with the option to allow "acceptable"
2] allow acceptable by default, with option to block all

EDIT/ #2 above is new default

as I say, will see how it goes...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2011, 09:50 AM »

Interestingly I have checked for FF addon updates and this doesn't seem to be the version I have now - there are no options that I can see in the current version on my system that mention these options ??? And it doesn't appear to be allowing ads through.

IainB · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2011, 10:28 AM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on December 13, 2011, 09:50 AM

Interestingly I have checked for FF addon updates and this doesn't seem to be the version I have now - there are no options that I can see in the current version on my system that mention these options ??? And it doesn't appear to be allowing ads through.

I'm not sure about this, but the newly-proposed "advert-friendly" version(s) don't seem to have been released yet.
I checked on AdBlockplus.org Announcements and found what might be some explanation given by this post - which may indicate that add-on compatibility checking is an issue: Automatic updates to Adblock Plus 1.3.10 temporarily disabled [Update]

I generally subscribe to the belts-and-braces approach - so I switched off my auto-updates for the 2 add-ons anyway.

By the way, I am using FF v9.0 on the ß channel, and I have add-on compatibility checking disabled (so add-on updates generally get through, regardless). I do this because the new releases of FF seem to be coming too thick and furious for add-on developers to keep up. The browser stability seems unaffected - pretty much rock-solid, so far.

If I do find that an add-on becomes unstable, I just disable it until its releases catch up.

IainB · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:14 PM »

Quote from: TaoPhoenix on December 12, 2011, 11:37 PM

I think Adblock has had trouble blocking the Wikipedia campaign boxes lately. I think you can sludge your way with things like ElementHider (spelling?) but still, it's an ad,and it's ugly, go away.

I just checked, and AdBlockPlus in my FF is still blocking those ugly ads on Wikipedia.

tomos · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:54 PM »

Quote from: IainB on December 13, 2011, 02:14 PM

Quote from: TaoPhoenix on December 12, 2011, 11:37 PM
I think Adblock has had trouble blocking the Wikipedia campaign boxes lately. I think you can sludge your way with things like ElementHider (spelling?) but still, it's an ad,and it's ugly, go away.
I just checked, and AdBlockPlus in my FF is still blocking those ugly ads on Wikipedia.

hasn't here for a while

cyberdiva · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:55 PM »

I'm using version 1.3.10, and apparently it hasn't been updated. I've now unchecked "Update Add-ons Automatically," but I'm not sure what "Reset All Add-ons to Update Manually" means. If I've turned off automatic updates, doesn't that mean I'll have to update all add-ons manually? Why is that option listed? Does it mean that I'll automatically be notified when there's an update, but it won't be installed unless I say so?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #15 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:56 PM »

Quote from: tomos on December 13, 2011, 02:54 PM

Quote from: IainB on December 13, 2011, 02:14 PM
Quote from: TaoPhoenix on December 12, 2011, 11:37 PM
I think Adblock has had trouble blocking the Wikipedia campaign boxes lately. I think you can sludge your way with things like ElementHider (spelling?) but still, it's an ad,and it's ugly, go away.
I just checked, and AdBlockPlus in my FF is still blocking those ugly ads on Wikipedia.

hasn't here for a while

Try an addition list subscription to see if that will block it.

cyberdiva · « **Reply #16 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:59 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on December 13, 2011, 02:56 PM

Try an addition list subscription to see if that will block it.

Carol, I'm not sure whether your message is in response to mine. If it is, let me just say that I'm not eager to add anyone else's list. (If you were responding to someone else, sorry for this irrelevant response.)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #17 on:** December 13, 2011, 03:37 PM »

Sorry - we both posted at the same time - I have updated my post to make it clearer.

mrainey · « **Reply #18 on:** December 13, 2011, 04:10 PM »

Thinking about good ways to stop the Wikipedia ads inspired me to send them twenty bucks.

cyberdiva · « **Reply #19 on:** December 13, 2011, 04:24 PM »

I also donated money to Wikipedia, but it didn't stop the ads. I didn't expect it to, but that would have been a nice "thank you."

mrainey · « **Reply #20 on:** December 13, 2011, 04:38 PM »

Quote

that would have been a nice "thank you.

Agreed. If everybody chipped in a little, maybe they could turn the ads off. They're a pretty recent thing.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #21 on:** December 13, 2011, 04:41 PM »

If anyone wants to filter those notices the custom adblock filter is:

wikipedia.org##div#siteNotice

(at least today)

Actually they have been appearing on and off for years.

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #22 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:31 PM »

I don't see what the hubbub is about.

First, there's no point in blocking the update, because you can still opt out of the change.

Second, I think their goal really does make sense: encourage less annoying advertising by continuing to block anything that goes over the line.

The fact is that many, many sites *need* that ad revenue to stay alive, and I really want to have all that stuff still on the Internet. If we're still in the driver's seat, with software that blocks the stuff that crosses the line, I think everyone wins.

EDIT: fix spelling error.

Josh · « **Reply #23 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:42 PM »

I am with CWuestefeld. I already allow sites that are not abnoxious with their ads. Betanews is an example of a site which takes advertising overboard with their constant flash based ads which take over the page until you close them. I have no issues with google ads or basic static images. But anything animated that detracts my attention from the page content is over the line.

I support ABP in this initiative. I want the internet to remain free and prevent a world where you have to subscribe to multiple websites to get INFORMATION.

Eóin · « **Reply #24 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:58 PM »

Personally I don't mind, static ads are all but invisible to my brain. In the past I've happily browsed the web without ads blocked, rather I just use flash block so I can enable only the flash boxes I want.

So I guess I'm with CWuestefeld and Josh on this.

Also, here's some food for thought - If you block ads, then aren't you being immensely selfish? After-all it means you are leeching a service while happily off loading the cost of your usage onto your fellow netizens who don't block the ads. You are using them to subsidise your own gains.