Exiting new Firefox feature in the latest nightly build

blakeyrat

It's more useful to be able to actually see that shit as it's going on instead of having to do that seperately. Especially since I was debugging an application that was only accessable over HTTPS.

WTF?

1) Fiddler "shows that shit as it's going on". What, do you think it sits on the data for 20 minutes before showing it to you?

2) Fiddler works over HTTPS (your browser will gripe, but just add an exception.)

I mean, use what you want, but this makes me think you've never actually used Fiddler before.

@Lingerance said:

Firebug gives you nice red text with "X errors" when an error happens, I much prefer that as I can see the full pile-up at once (how often does only one error happen to you?).

The nice red text only shows if you have Firebug turned on, which I don't often do. And one error happens to me quite often, in fact most of the time... although every so often I get the annoying cascading errors, or errors in a tight loop scenario, in which case it's annoying. But I'm not asking for it to be on all the time, I just am asking for the feature to exist.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@toshir0 said:

>>> keyword-based shortcuts for searches, directly in the address bar.

Chrome can be set-up to do that, although it's not out of the box. You can associate keywords with search engines, so simply create an 'I'm feeling lucky' search engine entry with the keyword you want to use. You'd need to type an extra character, though :)

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

have Firebug turned on, which I don't often do

Stop doing that.

Keep it on.

Really.

On.

dhromed

@Lingerance said:

It's more useful to be able to actually see that shit as it's going on instead of having to do that seperately.

Are we still talking about a thing that is not Firebug because Firebug does exactly what you want as far as I can see?

Lingerance

@dhromed said:

@Lingerance said:
It's more useful to be able to actually see that shit as it's going on instead of having to do that seperately.

Are we still talking about a thing that is not Firebug because Firebug does exactly what you want as far as I can see?

I'm describing Firebuig, where did you get confused?

DaveK1

@blakeyrat said:

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
On the slightly different subject of adblock and similar, am I alone in thinking it's not quite right to block ads? If that's how a site gets some money, should I be blocking them? Isn't that akin to saying that since you can smash a window and get in, it's fine to burgle a house?

My main objection to AdBlocker is:

1) They sell it as a tool to get rid of annoying ads

2) It doesn't have any mode to actually work that way

(Kind of like how Napster claimed their program existed to find new music you otherwise wouldn't be exposed to. Leading to the obvious question, "then why do you need to know the name of the artist or song before downloading it?" But... digress.)
If AdBlock whitelisted all sites, except those you specifically blacklist, I'd be fine with it. Instead, it blacklists all sites, and you have to whitelist the sites you want to see ads on, which is completely backwards.

It does no such thing. First off, it is blacklist, not whitelist based. Secondly, that blacklist starts off empty, unless you subscribe to one of the pre-defined blocklists

[quote user="http://adblockplus.org/en/getting_started"]

What is Adblock Plus? What can it do?

<p>Adblock

Plus is an extension for Firefox, Thunderbird, and several other
applications with the primary goal of removing advertisements. For
that, it will look at all requests made by web pages and block the
request if the address the request should go to matches a filter in
Adblock Plus. Out of the box, Adblock Plus comes without any filters
whatsoever but will offer to add a filter subscription on first start —
that is a list of filters maintained by other Adblock Plus users and
will be updated automatically regularly. A filter subscription can be
added later as well (see Choosing a filter subscription), but you can also create your own filters regardless of whether you use a filter subscription.

[/quote]

@blakeyrat said:

For the record, I work with a lot of web advertising people

That could explain the cognitive bias that has led you to conceive an irrational dislike for AdBlock based on delusional beliefs about what it is and does.

@blakeyrat said:

The bigger pain is people who constantly delete cookies, or switch
browsers every day, or use Safari. Because those people screw up your
analytics.

bows Glad to be of dis-service!

dhromed

@Lingerance said:

I'm describing Firebuig, where did you get confused?

I added the stuff in [brackets]; that is how I parsed it:

NOTE: I'm really sure Chromium's dev tools are borked on all my workstations (there's three) [right now] as I [honestly] recall actually being able to do some of these things at one time [and don't get why I can't do them now ].
[ So here are things that I was able to do in Chrome's inspector: ]

    * Edit the HTML/CSS live
    * See JS errors
    * See Ajax requests (when this did work [in chrome] Firefox's was [nonetheless] better as it didn't require you to make a second identical request to see the results)
    * Send a fresh AJAX request and get the results
    * Overall the interface is cleaner IMO

When it did work [in chrome] I liked how I could look at a 50k LoC JS file and scroll through without performance hits (firefox chokes on this [so yeah, chrome's better overall]).

@blakeyrat said:

I will say that Chrome's dev tools lack a cookie editor, but... hey so does Firebug! So no difference there. And Chrome's will at least list cookies and let you delete them one-by-one if you so desire.

Firecookie: an extension for your addon! If you're too lazy to go Preferences > Privacy > Show Cookies

Also, FirePHP (which isn't really specific to PHP, since you can implement in whatever way you like on the server side) is nice.

Oh, I just discovered that you can actually run JavaScript on the Chromium console, so that's one less point of disadvantage for Chro.

And finally, Firefox doesn't have a checkbox to stop the page from popping alerts, so it's one less point of advantage for FF. See also this:@blakeyrat said:

It does this. (One thing I miss from IE: show an alert when you encounter a JS error! Without alerts, there's no incentive to fix the "harmless" errors.)

Ha ha ha!

Anyways, I'd just like to reiterate that I haven't moved from Firefox mostly out of laziness. I may give Chrome a chance one of these days.

blakeyrat

@DaveK said:

It does no such thing. First off, it is blacklist, not whitelist based. Secondly, that blacklist starts off empty, unless you subscribe to one of the pre-defined blocklists

I simplified the problem, but I didn't get it nearly as wrong as you imply.

1) AdBlock Plus downloads and installs with a blocklist already defined and active. From your blurb, apparently that has changed recently.

2) It's true that AdBlock Plus lets you blacklist domains, but it only lets you blacklist *ad* domains, not *content* domains.

What does this mean?

FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)

Now, AdBlock can block the Atlas ad network, but there's no way to tell it, "hey, I want you to block atdmt.com content linked from NastyHorridSite.com, but I don't want you to block it if it's linked from any other domain." The blacklist feature needs to apply to the *content* domain, that is, the domain in the URL bar of your browser, *not* to the ad server domain, otherwise you end up with exactly what I describe: for all practical purposes, there's no way to keep AdBlock off except for blacklisted domains. It seems to have been built with the strangely out-of-touch assumption that ads are served from the same domain as content.

Now that you've heard my explanation, go ahead and call me an idiot and point out what parts of this I got wrong.

@DaveK said:

That could explain the cognitive bias that has led you to conceive an irrational dislike for AdBlock based on delusional beliefs about what it is and does.

Yeah, yeah.

@DaveK said:

@blakeyrat said:
The bigger pain is people who constantly delete cookies, or switch
browsers every day, or use Safari. Because those people screw up your
analytics.
bows Glad to be of dis-service!

Yes, yes, I know. I work in web analytics, therefore I love nothing more than ... violating your privacy(?) somehow(?) using cookies. (The question marks are due to having never, ever heard a viable scenario in which tracking cookies violates somebody's privacy... but hey, Slashdotters believe it, so it must be true.) I got the toothbrush mustache and seig heil salute all ready.

Seriously, though, if you're going to block ads, block ads. If you're going to erase cookies for no reason, increasing the chances that you'll be served ads for, for example, tampons instead of hamburgers. It also makes it far harder for us to destroy the old, retarded, un-measured advertising strongholds of newspapers, TV, and radio. Our company is trying to inject sanity, science, actual measurable response, to advertising and banish the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" method forever. It's a good thing.

And besides that, I don't even work in that department. I just do analytics.

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

ncreasing the chances that you'll be served ads for, for example, tampons instead of hamburgers

What if I'm a fat bitch?

But +1 conscious, targeted advertising.

Really. I have an interest in certain products. I am interested in knowing where and when to obtain these items or services.

Soap ad on TV? Fucking annoying!
Insurance ad? Fucking annoying!
Movie trailer? Heyyy...
Game ad? Awesome. I'll check it out!

blakeyrat

@Zecc said:

Firecookie: an extension for your addon! If you're too lazy to go Preferences > Privacy > Show Cookies

Yo dawg we heard you like addins, so we put an addin in your addin so you can debug while you debug!

Lingerance

@dhromed said:

@Lingerance said:
I'm describing Firebuig, where did you get confused?

I added the stuff in [brackets]; that is how I parsed it:
NOTE: I'm really sure Chromium's dev tools are borked on all my workstations (there's three) [right now] as I [honestly] recall actually being able to do some of these things at one time [and don't get why I can't do them now ].
[ So here are things that I was able to do in Firebug: ]

    * Edit the HTML/CSS live
    * See JS errors
    * See Ajax requests (when this did work [in chrome] Firefox's was [nonetheless] better as it didn't require you to make a second identical request to see the results)
    * Send a fresh AJAX request and get the results
    * Overall the interface is cleaner IMO

When it did work [in chrome] I liked how I could look at a 50k LoC JS file and scroll through without performance hits (firefox chokes on this ~~[so yeah, chrome's better overall]~~).

That's how it should've been parsed.

DaveK1

@blakeyrat said:

@DaveK said:
It does no such thing. First off, it is blacklist, not whitelist based. Secondly, that blacklist starts off empty, unless you subscribe to one of the pre-defined blocklists

I simplified the problem, but I didn't get it nearly as wrong as you imply.

1) AdBlock Plus downloads and installs with a blocklist already defined and active. From your blurb, apparently that has changed recently.
2) It's true that AdBlock Plus lets you blacklist domains, but it only lets you blacklist *ad* domains, not *content* domains.
What does this mean?
FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)
Now, AdBlock can block the Atlas ad network, but there's no way to tell it, "hey, I want you to block atdmt.com content linked from NastyHorridSite.com, but I don't want you to block it if it's linked from any other domain." The blacklist feature needs to apply to the *content* domain, that is, the domain in the URL bar of your browser, *not* to the ad server domain, otherwise you end up with exactly what I describe: for all practical purposes, there's no way to keep AdBlock off except for blacklisted domains. It seems to have been built with the strangely out-of-touch assumption that ads are served from the same domain as content.
Now that you've heard my explanation, go ahead and call me an idiot and point out what parts of this I got wrong.

Ok, this bit:

@blakeyrat said:

My main objection to AdBlocker is:
1) They sell it as a tool to get rid of annoying ads
2) It doesn't have any mode to actually work that way

It precisely is and does those things. It is an *Ad blocker*, not a "friendly site supporter". What it does is it blocks the adverts. It does not assume that the "annoying"ness or otherwise of an ad is dependent on which site you see it on: it blocks ads, not their context.

I think it's fair to say that you over-simplified your description of the problem to the point where it was misleading.

@blakeyrat said:

@DaveK said:
@blakeyrat said:
The bigger pain is people who constantly delete cookies, or switch browsers every day, or use Safari. Because those people screw up your analytics.
*bows* Glad to be of dis-service!

Yes, yes, I know. I work in web analytics, therefore I love nothing more than ... violating your privacy(?) somehow(?) using cookies. (The question marks are due to having never, ever heard a viable scenario in which tracking cookies violates somebody's privacy... but hey, Slashdotters believe it, so it must be true.) I got the toothbrush mustache and seig heil salute all ready.

Don't be all sensitive, I was only teasing!

@blakeyrat said:

Seriously, though, if you're going to block ads, block ads. If you're going to erase cookies for no reason, increasing the chances that you'll be served ads for, for example, tampons instead of hamburgers.

Which I also won't see! :-D

@blakeyrat said:

It also makes it far harder for us to destroy the old, retarded, un-measured advertising strongholds of newspapers, TV, and radio. Our company is trying to inject sanity, science, actual measurable response, to advertising and banish the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" method forever. It's a good thing.

I honestly and truthfully don't see any overlap between my interests and those of the advertising industry, so I really don't care about helping you out with that. I'm more inclined to the Bill Hicks point-of-view.

@blakeyrat said:

And besides that, I don't even work in that department. I just do analytics.

Well, I don't actually do it to get at you personally, or anyone. I browse without cookies, scripts, java and flash, because I get a much better experience of the web doing it that way, and that's my main motivation.

Seriously, these days, when I try using an un-locked-down browser, surfing the web has become an awful lot like television. The way my browser presents it to me is much more like reading a book. I prefer that.

PJH

@blakeyrat said:

FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content
they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying
and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving
their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)

So atdmt.com are serving annoying adverts that play sound. Looks like you want to block ads from atdmt.com.

@blakeyrat said:

Now, AdBlock can block the Atlas ad network, but there's no way to tell it,
"hey, I want you to block atdmt.com content linked from NastyHorridSite.com, but
I don't want you to block it if it's linked from any other domain." The
blacklist feature needs to apply to the content domain, that is, the domain in
the URL bar of your browser, not to the ad server domain, otherwise you end up
with exactly what I describe: for all practical purposes, there's no way to keep
AdBlock off except for blacklisted domains. It seems to have been built with the
strangely out-of-touch assumption that ads are served from the same domain as
content.

Now that you've heard my explanation, go ahead and call me an idiot and point out what parts of this I got wrong

You want to block obnixious ads when viewed on one site, but you want to view the same ads when viewed on another site.

I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies. On sticks. Pink ones. (Ponies, that is, not sticks. The sticks come in all colors.)

blakeyrat

@DaveK said:

Ok, this bit:
@blakeyrat said:
My main objection to AdBlocker is:

1) They sell it as a tool to get rid of annoying ads

2) It doesn't have any mode to actually work that way
It precisely is and does those things. It is an Ad blocker, not a "friendly site supporter". What it does is it blocks the adverts. It does not assume that the "annoying"ness or otherwise of an ad is dependent on which site you see it on: it blocks ads, not their context.

Well, ok, then it's wrong. Because the domain atdmt.com is a dumb ad server-- it can serve annoying ads to one site while serving fine ads to another. Tools can be used, or tools can be misused.

This is a really simple concept that anybody should get.

@PJH said:

So atdmt.com are serving annoying adverts that play sound. Looks like you want to block ads from atdmt.com.

... damn.

Yeah, and a sometimes criminals use freeways to get away from robberies. So let's close all freeways, too, right?

@PJH said:

You want to block obnixious ads when viewed on one site, but you want to view the same ads when viewed on another site.

I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies. On sticks. Pink ones. (Ponies, that is, not sticks. The sticks come in all colors.)

They aren't the same ads. Seriously, is the concept of "a webserver serving more than one type of content" hard? I honestly don't get how you can even type something like that.

@DaveK said:

I honestly and truthfully don't see any overlap between my interests and those of the advertising industry, so I really don't care about helping you out with that. I'm more inclined to the Bill Hicks point-of-view.

The fact that advertisers reward sites whose content you enjoy doesn't figure into it at all?

@DaveK said:

Seriously, these days, when I try using an un-locked-down browser, surfing the web has become an awful lot like television. The way my browser presents it to me is much more like reading a book. I prefer that.

And our company's goal is to make it not like television. That's why we do everything in our power to explain to our customers the benefits of a less intrusive model, and of non-advertising marketing.

The cause of crappy TV advertising is lack of data. There's literally *no way* to tell which TV ads influenced a purchasing decision-- this doesn't apply on the web! So if you're seeing TV-style ads on the web, that just means that we're dealing with clients who have been in the "TV mindset" so long that they genuinely don't *get* the Internet. That is a problem, yes, but undermining our analytics doesn't help, it hurts.

Again, do what you like. I'm not telling you how to live your life, but just make sure your decisions are educated decisions.

blakeyrat

@PJH said:

I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies.

BTW, I've worked with the Atlas system for about 4 years now. I think maybe I know a teeny bit more how it works than you do.

PJH

@blakeyrat said:

@PJH said:
I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies.
BTW, I've worked with the Atlas system for about 4 years now. I think maybe I know a teeny bit more how it works than you do.

Which is relevant, in the context of the rest of my post which you didn't quote, how exactly?

By the way, yes, you're right - I don't know how spamvitisers work. And until my food and rent tokens depends on it, I wont. Beer tokens, maybe..

blakeyrat

@PJH said:

@blakeyrat said:
@PJH said:
I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies.
BTW, I've worked with the Atlas system for about 4 years now. I think maybe I know a teeny bit more how it works than you do.
Which is relevant, in the context of the rest of my post which you didn't quote, how exactly?

By the way, yes, you're right - I don't know how spamvitisers work. And until my food and rent tokens depends on it, I wont. Beer tokens, maybe..

I replied to your points in the middle of my reply to DaveK's points. Which is admittedly confusing. But it made for a pretty humorous bit, so I think it was worth it.

The point is, atdmt.com doesn't serve *only* bad ads or *only* good ads. It serves all types of ads. The only reasonable way to filter is by looking at both the ad server domain (atdmt.com in this case) *and* the content domain (SiteIReallyLike.com). Since AdBlock Pro only looks at the ad server domain, it doesn't work right. And since it doesn't work right, it can't be used in the way they claim it's intended to be used. So there.

b_redeker

@blakeyrat said:

The point is, atdmt.com doesn't serve *only* bad ads or *only* good ads. It serves all types of ads. The only reasonable way to filter is by looking at both the ad server domain (atdmt.com in this case) *and* the content domain (SiteIReallyLike.com). Since AdBlock Pro only looks at the ad server domain, it doesn't work right. And since it doesn't work right, it can't be used in the way they claim it's intended to be used. So there.

Look at it this way.
- cost of seeing a bad ad (aka that you didn't want to see): anger and annoyance.
- cost of not seeing a good ad (aka you would have liked it): none. So far, no ad ever has changed my life. That includes Internet ads.

So if adblock also filters the good ads, *shrug*. Can they please do the same for magazines, billboards and movie tie-ins? I'll make an exception for some TV commercials because sometimes they are actually funny (yes, I'm looking at you, insurance companies).

Having said that, I play devils advocate a bit now because in fact I couldn't care less. As long as it's not totally blinkender lightz or scaring my kids or showing me porn ads on my favorite news site (all actual examples), it's ok.

blakeyrat

@b-redeker said:

- cost of not seeing a good ad (aka you would have liked it): none.

So, again, the fact that you're screwing over the content creator doesn't figure in at all? They produced the content and provided it to you with the assumption that you would consume the advertising as well.

It's amazing how a topic like this brings out all the incredibly selfish people.

@b-redeker said:

Having said that, I play devils advocate a bit now because in fact I couldn't care less. As long as it's not totally blinkender lightz or scaring my kids or showing me porn ads on my favorite news site (all actual examples), it's ok.

And wouldn't it be great if there was a piece of software, perhaps a browser plug-in, that would allow you to see those ads while still blocking the ads you find offensive?

ender

I personally block everything that moves in any way - those things distract me, and if I can't remove them from my vision by scrolling away, it's right-click -> block content (this isn't limited to ads, but to various tickers as well). Another thing that I block are large bright images - I browse most of the time by applying a custom stylesheet that turns background dark and text light (since I find this much easier on my eyes), and bright images near text make that text hard to read (despite me having the monitor brightness set to very low level).

@blakeyrat said:

1) AdBlock Plus downloads and installs with a blocklist already defined and active. From your blurb, apparently that has changed recently.

I've been using AdBlock for quite some time and it has never installed with a predefined blocklist defined and active. During its initial installation It does ask you if you want to subscribe to a block list, and offers you a choice of several, but you can say no, in which case you start out with nothing blocked.

@blakeyrat said:

"hey, I want you to block atdmt.com content linked from NastyHorridSite.com, but I don't want you to block it if it's linked from any other domain." The blacklist feature needs to apply to the *content* domain, that is, the domain in the URL bar of your browser, *not* to the ad server domain, otherwise you end up with exactly what I describe: for all practical purposes, there's no way to keep AdBlock off except for blacklisted domains. It seems to have been built with the strangely out-of-touch assumption that ads are served from the same domain as content.

Technically, this is correct, but the basic assumption behind AdBlock is that advertising is advertising and you don't want to see any adverts, so you just block the entire atdmt domain. Which is not an unreasonable assumption given that most websites have adopted a policy of trying to bludgeon you with as many adverts as possible, often to the point of making it nearly mpossible to concentrate on the content of the site. Whenever I decide to try out the latest incarnation of other browsers that do not offer ad blocking, I find many web sites that are completely unusable and unbearable.

And that's the real point of all this. We (the regular people browsing websites) didn't start this war. AdBlock wasn't created because some jerk decided he wanted to screw websites out of advertising revenue. It was created out of necessity because website operators don't seem to understand that people come to their site for the content, not the ads, and having a dozen bouncing, twirling, zooming, flashing ads on every page is really fucking annoying.

@blakeyrat said:

Our company is trying to inject sanity, science, actual measurable response, to advertising and banish the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" method forever. It's a good thing..

That's great, and maybe someday you'll be successful and all the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" will go away. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

b_redeker

@blakeyrat said:

@b-redeker said:
- cost of not seeing a good ad (aka you would have liked it): none.
So, again, the fact that you're screwing over the content creator doesn't figure in at all? They produced the content and provided it to you with the assumption that you would consume the advertising as well.
It's amazing how a topic like this brings out all the incredibly selfish people.

It does figure, but not in the way you assume. If I go to store A (say Best Buy) to get/browse/see product X (say a tv) and they throw loads of unwanted ads at me, getting me to look at all the other cool stuff, I get pissed off. Same with a website. I don't like to get pissed off, so I'll ignore most of it. But I don't have the obligation to actually look at ads just because that's their business model. Think about it.

@blakeyrat said:

@b-redeker said:
Having said that, I play devils advocate a bit now because in fact I couldn't care less. As long as it's not totally blinkender lightz or scaring my kids or showing me porn ads on my favorite news site (all actual examples), it's ok.
And wouldn't it be great if there was a piece of software, perhaps a browser plug-in, that would allow you to see those ads while still blocking the ads you find offensive?

Great? No. Moderately nice? Yes. But never in my lfe have I thought: hey, you know what I need right now? A great ad, that would do it!

blakeyrat

@El_Heffe said:

Which is not an unreasonable assumption given that most websites have adopted a policy of trying to bludgeon you with as many adverts as possible, often to the point of making it nearly mpossible to concentrate on the content of the site.

I'm breaking out the italics.

But that's the site's problem! Atlas didn't design their site, or tell them how many placements to use. Blocking Atlas because one of the millions of sites that use Atlas has distracting ads is completely wrong.

You're right: it's reasonable to assume that if one page SiteIHate.com has "as many ads as possible" that every other page on that site does as well. It's not reasonable to assume that because SiteIHate.com uses Atlas, all sites that use Atlas have "as many ads as possible."

@El_Heffe said:

Whenever I decide to try out the latest incarnation of other browsers that do not offer ad blocking, I find many web sites that are completely unusable and unbearable.

You're either vastly exaggerating, or talking about porn sites. (Or cheezburger network sites, I guess... those are awful.) Wouldn't a better solution be to not visit those sites?

@El_Heffe said:

And that's the real point of all this. We (the regular people browsing websites) didn't start this war.

Sorry? There's a war?

@El_Heffe said:

It was created out of necessity because website operators don't seem to understand that people come to their site for the content, not the ads, and having a dozen bouncing, twirling, zooming, flashing ads on every page is really fucking annoying.

Some website operators don't. Others do. I've made this point, what, three, four times now? Please let it absorb into your brain this time, because I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

Shocking expose: there's not just one super-busy guy creating every website on Earth!

@El_Heffe said:

That's great, and maybe someday you'll be successful and all the "throw shit at the wall and see
what sticks" will go away. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Look, like I said above, do what you like. Just make sure it's an informed decision, ok? Because you are hurting people, people who create content you love.

Yes, it works the other way around - it's a whitelist instead of a blacklist - but I prefer it that way, really.

This way I'm not screwing the authors of sites I like.

What's your case in favour of using a blacklist for content sites instead of a whitelist?

EDIT: ok, so I'm hurting site authors by default, instead of only punishing the abusers.

I get your point and agree that it would in fact be preferrable to have a downloadable blacklist, much like those for malware sites.

Cad_Delworth

@dhromed said:

I do kind of like Chrome

I can recommend the Iron browser. It's built on Chrome source code, but with all the 'report everthing that happens in my browser (and possibly elsewhere as well) to Google' code removed from it at source code level. It also supports many Chrome extensions. Personally, I use just six extensions: AdThwart, Bubble Translate, Get Flash, IE Tab, Stop Autoplay for YouTube, and Tabs to the Front!

It also runs VERY fast.

DaveK1

@blakeyrat said:

@DaveK said:
Ok, this bit:
@blakeyrat said:
My main objection to AdBlocker is:
1) They sell it as a tool to get rid of annoying ads
2) It doesn't have any mode to actually work that way
It precisely is and does those things. It is an *Ad blocker*, not a "friendly site supporter". What it does is it blocks the adverts. It does not assume that the "annoying"ness or otherwise of an ad is dependent on which site you see it on: it blocks ads, not their context.

Well, ok, then it's wrong. Because the domain atdmt.com is a dumb ad server-- it can serve annoying ads to one site while serving fine ads to another. Tools can be used, or tools can be misused.

This is a really simple concept that anybody should get.

@blakeyrat said:

They aren't the same ads. Seriously, is the concept of "a webserver serving more than one type of content" hard? I honestly don't get how you can even type something like that.

And you can selectively block some ads from that domain and not others, based on your personal preferences, should you so wish; the filter patterns can be as narrow or as broad as you like, right down to a specific URL. To my tastes, they're all rubbish, so I block the lot, but if you only wanted to block individual adverts one-by-one, that works just fine.

This, too, is a really simple concept that anybody should get.

@blakeyrat said:

@DaveK said:
I honestly and truthfully don't see any overlap between my interests and those of the advertising industry, so I really don't care about helping you out with that. I'm more inclined to the Bill Hicks point-of-view.

The fact that advertisers reward sites whose content you enjoy doesn't figure into it at all?

Neither for nor against. I don't mind the sites that I like getting rewarded, nor do I promise to actively assist them in that.

@blakeyrat said:

@DaveK said:
Seriously, these days, when I try using an un-locked-down browser, surfing the web has become an awful lot like television. The way my browser presents it to me is much more like reading a book. I prefer that.

And our company's goal is to make it not like television. That's why we do everything in our power to explain to our customers the benefits of a less intrusive model, and of non-advertising marketing.

The cause of crappy TV advertising is lack of data. There's literally *no way* to tell which TV ads influenced a purchasing decision-- this doesn't apply on the web! So if you're seeing TV-style ads on the web, that just means that we're dealing with clients who have been in the "TV mindset" so long that they genuinely don't *get* the Internet. That is a problem, yes, but undermining our analytics doesn't help, it hurts.

To me, there's no real distinction between "advertising" and "crappy advertising". I don't need the help of "influence" for my "purchasing decisions". And the best thing about books is that they don't have any adverts at all. I don't want "relevant" adverts. I want no adverts. They are worthless, useless, intrusive, objectionable intrusions into my life, my mind, and my time.

@blakeyrat said:

Again, do what you like. I'm not telling you how to live your life, but just make sure your decisions are educated decisions.

Sure. My educated decision, based on the fact that I hate pretty much all ads indiscriminately, and on the fact that only one in a million ever conveys any information that is actually useful to me, is to turn them off.

I think we've pretty much got down to matters of taste here, but AdBlock can be used far more selectively than you seem to think, and I'm pretty sure your main objection to AdBlock is because you actually *want* ads. For you, AdBlock probably doesn't make sense, but that doesn't really mean that it doesn't do what it says it does.

blakeyrat

@Zecc said:

Yes, this was my very first post on this topic, remember? Pointing out that AdBlock doesn't have the inverse of the feature you've highlighted? Before typing that became "too simplified" and "misleading" or whatever crap is in this thread I'm not going to scroll up and look.

If AdBlock Plus had the inverse of that feature, and that was the default mode, then I'd cheer it on. As it ships now, I can't get behind it.

anondrifice

@blakeyrat said:

FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)

||atdmt.com/$domain=NastyHorridSite.com

DaveK1

@anondrifice said:

@blakeyrat said:
FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)

||atdmt.com/$domain=NastyHorridSite.com

WIN!

/thread

@blakeyrat said:

Yes, this was my very first post on this topic, remember? Pointing out that AdBlock doesn't have the inverse of the feature you've highlighted? Before typing that became "too simplified" and "misleading" or whatever crap is in this thread I'm not going to scroll up and look.
If AdBlock Plus had the inverse of that feature, and that was the default mode, then I'd cheer it on. As it ships now, I can't get behind it.

Yes, I remember.@Zecc said:

EDIT: ok, so I'm hurting site authors by default, instead of only punishing the abusers.I get your point and agree that it would in fact be preferrable to have a downloadable blacklist, much like those for malware sites.

Plus, it seems AdBlock Plus does in fact have that functionality, as now they've shown. Although admittedly it is a bit "hidden" since I didn't know about it; mostly because I didn't spend much time exploring AdBlock Plus' interface, as is probably the case for most people^{[weasel words]}.

blakeyrat

@Zecc said:

Plus, it seems AdBlock Plus does in fact have that functionality, as now they've shown. Although admittedly it is a bit "hidden" since I didn't know about it; mostly because I didn't spend much time exploring AdBlock Plus' interface, as is probably the case for most people^{[weasel words]}.

If there's no easy-to-use UI for it, the feature doesn't exist.

DaveK1

@blakeyrat said:

@Zecc said:
Plus, it seems AdBlock Plus does in fact have that functionality, as now they've shown. Although admittedly it is a bit "hidden" since I didn't know about it; mostly because I didn't spend much time exploring AdBlock Plus' interface, as is probably the case for most people^{[weasel words]}.

If there's no easy-to-use UI for it, the feature doesn't exist.

Ah, you're a PHB! No coder would ever talk like that ...

Lingerance

@DaveK said:

@blakeyrat said:
@Zecc said:
Plus, it seems AdBlock Plus does in fact have that functionality, as now they've shown. Although admittedly it is a bit "hidden" since I didn't know about it; mostly because I didn't spend much time exploring AdBlock Plus' interface, as is probably the case for most people^{[weasel words]}.

If there's no easy-to-use UI for it, the feature doesn't exist.
Ah, you're a PHB! No coder would ever talk like that ...

Probably a mutation of this.

blakeyrat

@Lingerance said:

Probably a mutation of this.

Pretty much.

To elaborate, the inverse of a feature activated by checking a menu item is:
1) Open a HTTP Debugger or your browser's debugging tool
2) Identify which domains ads are being served from
3) Open a text configuration file
4) For each ad server identified in step 2, enter that along with the content domain in the configuration file
5) Carefully make sure you don't have any stray characters to mess up the format
6) Save the configuration file
7) Do whatever is required of AdBlock Plus to get it to re-read the configuration file (reload? restart browser? I dunno)
8) Reload webpage to see if you got all the ads blocked

Needless-to-say, there's no help or guidance on doing any of this. Because I looked when I used AdBlock Plus myself.

So, yes. Any feature that requires 8 error-prone steps to activate? Doesn't exist. Hell, it's not even really a feature, it's just a side-effect of how their configuration file format works.

Corrector

@blakeyrat said:

@Lingerance said:
Probably a mutation of this.

Pretty much.

To elaborate, the inverse of a feature activated by checking a menu item is:
1) Open a HTTP Debugger or your browser's debugging tool
2) Identify which domains ads are being served from
3) Open a text configuration file
4) For each ad server identified in step 2, enter that along with the content domain in the configuration file
5) Carefully make sure you don't have any stray characters to mess up the format
6) Save the configuration file
7) Do whatever is required of AdBlock Plus to get it to re-read the configuration file (reload? restart browser? I dunno)
8) Reload webpage to see if you got all the ads blocked
Needless-to-say, there's no help or guidance on doing any of this. Because I looked when I used AdBlock Plus myself.
So, yes. Any feature that requires 8 error-prone steps to activate? Doesn't exist. Hell, it's not even really a feature, it's just a side-effect of how their configuration file format works.

Or:

1) Right click the offending ad
2) Click AdBlock Plus Remove this image

Finally, to allow ads on NiceSite.com:

1) Right click the ABP Logo
2) Click Disable on NiceSite.com

@Corrector said:

Or:
1) Right click the offending ad
2) Click AdBlock Plus Remove this image
Finally, to allow ads on NiceSite.com:
1) Right click the ABP Logo
2) Click Disable on NiceSite.com

Actually, when I right click on the AdBlock logo, I get 2 choices:

Disable on forums.thedailywtf.com

Disable on this page only

Pretty nice if you really want to pick and choose what you block.

@PJH said:

@blakeyrat said:
FriendlyLovelySite.com I want to see ads on, because I appreciate the content they offer. NastyHorridSite.com I'd rather block, because their ads are annoying and play sound. Both FriendlyLovelySite.com and NastyHorridSite.com are serving their ads from the Atlas ad network (atdmt.com, a real ad serving domain.)
You want to block obnixious ads when viewed on one site, but you want to view the same ads when viewed on another site.

I won't call you an idiot, but I will lump you in with customers who want ponies. On sticks. Pink ones.

I don't think that's what he is saying. I believe he is claiming that atdmt.com serves nasty ads to some sites and nice ads to others. Which makes sense, since atdmt is just a dumb server and there's no reason why it can't serve different ads to different web sites. However, I don't subscribe to theory of "good advertising" and just say "nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

blakeyrat

@El_Heffe said:

I don't think that's what he is saying. I believe he is claiming that atdmt.com serves nasty ads to some sites and nice ads to others. Which makes sense, since atdmt is just a dumb server and there's no reason why it can't serve different ads to different web sites. However, I don't subscribe to theory of "good advertising" and just say "nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Yes, and people who do subscribe to the theory of "good advertising" can't use AdBlock Plus (even though it has 95% of what they need already implemented), because ABP doesn't include a blacklist feature.

And now the thread has gone full-circle about 3 times.

davedavenotdavemaybe

Targeted advertising came up in conversation last night with a non-techy friend, from an interesting perspective. She was complaining that she never knows about gigs she wants to go to until after they happen, and wishing that she could see the ads for them, but not be bombarded with ads for gigs she has no intention of ever attending.

That's pretty much my take on it as well. I can't wait for advertising to be successfully and narrowly targeted. I find ads for things I'll never buy annoying, but I'd very much like someone to suggest things that I'd actually buy if I knew about them.`I expect that in a few years time we'll look back and wonder how we ever managed without it in our lives.

I don't really like giving data about my habits away for free, but if I'm effectively getting a personal shopper in exchange, I'm happy. I'm a bit less happy about trusting companies with all that data, but those problems can be mitigated against.

@blakeyrat said:

And now the thread has gone full-circle about 3 times.

Only because it's the third time you've ignored what people have told you. I guess this is number 4. You can block an entire domain (atdmt.com for example) and then you can whitelist individual websites or even individual pages. Right click AdBlock and select "disable on www.whatever.com". OK, so it's a whitelist instead of a blacklist. The effect is exactly the same and it takes a grand total of two clicks of your mouse to whitelist a site where you want to see their "good" ads while retaining a block on the "bad" ads. So what's the problem with that?

blakeyrat

@El_Heffe said:

Only because it's the third time you've ignored what people have told you.

No I haven't.

@El_Heffe said:

OK, so it's a whitelist instead of a blacklist. The effect is exactly the same

Actually, it's damned close to the exact opposite. PROTIP: white and black in this context are opposites!

@El_Heffe said:

and it takes a grand total of two clicks of your mouse to whitelist a site where you want to see their "good" ads while retaining a block on the "bad" ads. So what's the problem with that?

My problem is that I don't want to have to remember to check the menu for every single fucking site I visit, hundreds each day, then reload them. That's fucking stupid, you know it's fucking stupid, and the only reason you typed it is because you either thought I would be too fucking stupid to instantly tear apart your retarded argument.

You're not fucking stupid, I'm not fucking stupid, don't insult our intelligence, ok?

DescentJS

@blakeyrat said:

@El_Heffe said:
Only because it's the third time you've ignored what people have told you.
No I haven't. @El_Heffe said:
OK, so it's a whitelist instead of a blacklist. The effect is exactly the same
Actually, it's damned close to the exact opposite. PROTIP: white and black in this context are opposites! @El_Heffe said:
and it takes a grand total of two clicks of your mouse to whitelist a site where you want to see their "good" ads while retaining a block on the "bad" ads. So what's the problem with that?
My problem is that I don't want to have to remember to check the menu for every single fucking site I visit, hundreds each day, then reload them. That's fucking stupid, you know it's fucking stupid, and the only reason you typed it is because you either thought I would be too fucking stupid to instantly tear apart your retarded argument.
You're not fucking stupid, I'm not fucking stupid, don't insult our intelligence, ok?

Ahhh, what a nice day for a good ol' fashioned BlakeyRant(tm)

blakeyrat

@DescentJS said:

Ahhh, what a nice day for a good ol' fashioned BlakeyRant(tm)

Yeah, that was harsh. But how else do you react to someone almost literally trying to tell you black == white?

ender

@blakeyrat said:

My problem is that I don't want to have to remember to check the menu for every single fucking site I visit, hundreds each day, then reload them.

This is very simple to achieve: never serve annoying ads from atdmt.com, and I won't block it. Because if site X has annoying ads from atdmt.com, there's a great possibility that site Y also has annoying ads from atdmt.com, even if site Z has nice ads from atdmt.com. By blocking the site once, I got rid of the pest on X and Y at once, even if Z is also included as collateral damage. But that's a problem atdmt.com has to deal with.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@ender said:

@blakeyrat said:
My problem is that I don't want to have to remember to check the menu for every single fucking site I visit, hundreds each day, then reload them.
This is very simple to achieve: never serve annoying ads from atdmt.com, and I won't block it. Because if site X has annoying ads from atdmt.com, there's a great possibility that site Y also has annoying ads from atdmt.com, even if site Z has nice ads from atdmt.com. By blocking the site once, I got rid of the pest on X and Y at once, even if Z is also included as collateral damage. But that's a problem atdmt.com has to deal with.

OK, but it's still stealing.

PJH

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

But that's a problem atdmt.com has to deal with.
OK, but it's still stealing.

Well if such advertisers didn't have such annoying ads that steal our bandwidth/screen estate/CPU/cache/any other number of our resources, we wouldn't be tempted to block them to stop them stealing.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@PJH said:

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
But that's a problem atdmt.com has to deal with.
OK, but it's still stealing.
Well if such advertisers didn't have such annoying ads that steal our bandwidth/screen estate/CPU/cache/any other number of our resources, we wouldn't be tempted to block them to stop them stealing.

The site owners make content available on the understanding you will view ads to pay for it. The fact that you are able to block the ads makes no moral difference, any more than someone leaving their front door unlocked entitles you to steal their stuff.

PJH

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

The site owners make content available on the understanding you will view ads to pay for it.

Well they shouldn't piss off their (potential) viewers by using annoying ad companies then.

Xyro

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

@PJH said:
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
But that's a problem atdmt.com has to deal with.
OK, but it's still stealing.
Well if such advertisers didn't have such annoying ads that steal our bandwidth/screen estate/CPU/cache/any other number of our resources, we wouldn't be tempted to block them to stop them stealing.
The site owners make content available on the understanding you will view ads to pay for it. The fact that you are able to block the ads makes no moral difference, any more than someone leaving their front door unlocked entitles you to steal their stuff.

Huuhh??

This isn't like unsecured wireless, for which your analogy is usually repeated. So are users of text-only browsers (e.g., the visually impaired) all culpable of thievery? Tell me, when you are reading a periodical or driving down the highway, do you compel yourself to read the ads and billboards? Do you find it unethical to turn the radio channel when the three-in-a-row-greatest-1980s-hits stops playing music? Do you force yourself to watch TV commercials? You better, the station owners make the shows available on the understanding that you're not going to move from the sofa when the sponsors need their words.

Or is your logic only restricted to webpages that you believe require the unwilling attention of the patron?