Talk:Adblock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was nominated for deletion May 5, 2005, and was merged and redirected. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adblock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 04:20 UTC, 12 May 2005.

I just noticed that this article had been previously deleted. I will happily ignore that and hope people feel better about it this time. -- 213.67.47.131 11:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i am using ff1.5 and adblock and i works fine? any tests with newer versions that failed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.65.17.250 (talk • contribs) 03:10 UTC, 9 December 2005.

Contents

[edit] Adblock is it's own entity

Adblock has become a community and a somewhat political flashpoint, all while seeing minimal official development. It has garnered dedicated supporters, and friendly opponents. All in all, I'd say Adblock is it's own, relevant entity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.191.18.131 (talk • contribs) 15:27 UCT, 29 June 2005.

[edit] Eh

Does anyone know of an ad blocker with the same capability that actually works with 1.5? It should definitely be linked to in this article, seeing as I'm quite sure many disgruntled users of the newer versions come here looking for an equivalent. Joffeloff 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Adblock (Plus) works with Firefox 1.5, which I assume you're talking about.--128.208.85.160 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a question regarding Adblock plus. Does adblock prevent the browser from sending requests to the webserver regarding ads OR does it block (not display) ad content once the entire page is downloaded? Simply translated, does it save on Traffic? Manjukirans 07:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, it can do both - "Hide Content" (original Adblock, different name in different versions) would just prevent the images from being displayed. However, the default behavior is not to download the content at all (and save bandwidth in the process).Mr. Bene 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filterset.G

There's currently an independent article for Filterset.G. Filterset.G is really only known among users of Adblock, and is only notable as a preference set of Adblock. As we already have a mention of FiltersetG in this article, couldn't we just merge all of that information into a section on this page and make that page a redirect? It seems pretty unneccessary to have it as its own article. --DDG 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Leave it, I reckon. It's a different piece of software, maintained by different groups on different bases. Yes, one uses the other, but they're different entities. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify here, FilterSet.G is not a separate piece of software. It is a configuration file for AdBlock, in fact, a text file that can be loaded by AdBlock. Here is a link to the latest version of FilterSet.G. It is just a list of blocked regular expressions for use within AdBlock. --DDG 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, it isn't software, but it is still a different product, and there's easily enough material specifically on Filterset.G to justify an article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it, per GrahamGRA's and Hughcharlesparker's comments. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

I have corrected this sentence at the end of the article, in Adblock Plus 0.7 paragraph: The latest version is now 0.7, which brought back DIV blocking in a more general and powerful approach called "element hiding". Some users don't like the way this new approach works because it modifies the page after loading those images and/or scripts.. Explanation: This is not correct. Even if the implementation techniques are different, basically the "new approach" (element hiding) works in the same way that the "old approach" (DIV blocking): blocking/hiding the page elements so they are not displayed, but downloading them (no time or bandwith saved). I have also included a paragraph giving more explanations about Filterset Subscritpions, because I think probably will result helpful for not expert users.Rodio 18:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Proxy?

does adblock use something similar to a reverse proxy in order to filter ads?--66.203.178.174 02:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No.--128.208.85.160 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a description on http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_internal#policies --Wladimir Palant 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Analytics filterset

I´m looking for a filterset that only prevents data to be sent to Google Analytics or services like that. Is it available? 84.173.212.4 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I´ve just found the Filterset Generator in the external links section or this tracking filter [1] 84.173.212.4 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why revert?

I didn't hijack anything. I removed obsolete links, updated the currency of the article, and rearranged the content to make it more like a Wikipedia article than a jumble of mish-mashed information. What specific criticisms do you have Wikiwerks?--128.208.85.160 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I feel that code samples do not have a place on this page - there should be a link to a site that maintains up to date detection code, rather than an ever changing list of attempts to do so. 131.107.0.73 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me, tagging OR and with the comment. Mr. Bene 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detection

The detection section was created and maintained by one guy, a certain Danny Carlton, who has a personal vendetta against Adblock. I happen to have a personal vendetta against people who use wikipedia for their personal vendettas, so I removed his section. Note that although it refers to webmasters in the plural, Danny is just about the only guy who does this (hence the lack of citations). Here's a Slashdot story about him, for reference: [2] 82.27.63.151 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The detection section was added May 10, 2007 by Andreas Brekken. I commented in July that that method was not as accurate, and later added a newer method that worked at the time, but no longer does. Also, there are numerous web sites that use ad block detecting, some specifically for adblock plus. Do your homework. Dannycarlton 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The "detection method" is entirely JavaScript dependent. Either use NoScript or User agent changer. AdHater —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.91.230 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)