|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adblock Plus article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on May 12, 2005. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect.|
- 1 2005
- 2 Adblock is it's own entity
- 3 Eh
- 4 Filterset.G
- 5 Correction
- 6 Reverse Proxy?
- 7 Google Analytics filterset
- 8 Why revert?
- 9 Original Research
- 10 Detection
- 11 Adblock and Site Compatibility - Revisited
- 12 Legality of Adblocking
- 13 does the criticism section belong here?
- 14 drop down history disabled
- 15 Vote to Move
- 16 Whyisfirefoxblocked.com
- 17 Firefox is no longer blocked
- 18 In need of a big clean up
- 19 Move article
- 20 Bias against AdBlock
- 21 Wiki avoidance
- 22 Acceptable Ads
- 23 AdBlock April fools 2012?
- 24 Legalities section
- 25 Relation to internet advertising isn't fully described
- 26 Google
- 27 See Also - Dec. 2013
- 28 Ethics of Adblocking via BBC - Dec. 2013
- 29 Removal of information by ip
- 30 Original Adblock was confused with AdBlock (a.k.a. BetaFish Adblocker)
I just noticed that this article had been previously deleted. I will happily ignore that and hope people feel better about it this time. -- 188.8.131.52 11:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 15:27 UCT, 29 June 2005.
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.--220.127.116.11 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)
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)
- I support the merge proposal. By the way, is there a free/open-source Adblock filter set? I don't want to use Filterset.G for ethical reasons. - Sikon 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- @Sikon: I have mentioned some of them in the article:
- Easy List (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeoa83f/firefox/adblock_filter_list.htm)
- Adblock.free.fr (http://adblock.free.fr/adblock.txt)
- Filter von Dr.Evil (http://maltekraus.de/Firefox/adblock.txt)
- Cedrics Liste (http://chewey.de/mozilla/data/adblock.txt)
- and also Filterset.P (http://files.tagworld.com/4b9b724c4634577848bcb5f554ad30093ced.txt), not mentioned in the text.Rodio 18:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Filterset.G is used by more than just Adblock, leave them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrahamGRA (talk • contribs) 19:37 UTC, 20 May 2006. --- this comment was reformatted by HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:50, 5 June 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)
- Leave it, per GrahamGRA's and Hughcharlesparker's comments. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
does adblock use something similar to a reverse proxy in order to filter ads?--18.104.22.168 02:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- No.--22.214.171.124 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)
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? 126.96.36.199 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I´ve just found the Filterset Generator in the external links section or this tracking filter  188.8.131.52 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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?--184.108.40.206 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
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. 220.127.116.11 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That was me, tagging OR and with the comment. Mr. Bene 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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:  18.104.22.168 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)
I think there should be a rule where people who are involved with the subject of the article do not edit or ad information. Just a common courtesy. Wikipedia isn't a tool for people to be jerks, although it happens a lot. 4otr45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are other methods of detection which should be mentioned: http://www.cpalead.com/adblock.php NoScript doesn't help. Sometimes NoRedirect oder BlockSite can help, but not on every site. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Adblock and Site Compatibility - Revisited
Should it be noted that deviantART's new gallery system (version 5 (when folders came out) and newer) is not compatible with AdBlock? DA's new gallery system often causes the browser to not show previews of artwork when browsing/etc. (starting with the second page of browsing) This means it is not possible to click to go to an artwork while browsing (due to lack of text under previews.) However, using NoScript instead will successfully get around this issue if you only forbid googlesyndication. I thought this was a rather unique problem, as if DA specifically wrote the gallery system to make it troublesome for adblock users. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is also a problem with Images on some Wiki's, This page for example should have a small button in the panel above the green line. When Adblock is installed, this is blank. There are several images uploaded on that site which cannot be seen by people using Firefox/Adblock Plus. Si Dunford 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- there should almost certainly be a compatibility section that covers compatibility both intentional and not, or even a section on counter-adblock programming. I remember something on Newgrounds that puts insulting images in the place of ads, or hides insulting images under ads so they show up when the ads are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Legality of Adblocking
- well, i guess that's legal, since it's still alive. Twipley (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a very sad reflection of a commercialized society that you think doing something on your own computer to hide ads from yourself might somehow be criminal. It's up to you what you want to read and look at. I hope you don't feel guilty if you get up to use the toilet during a commercial break on television! Credulity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
does the criticism section belong here?
- This is a good point, however there has been a lot of criticism directly focused on Adblock specifically due to its popularity. I fear that if it is left to a generic article that it will not be read by as many Wikipedia guests. My primary issue with it is that it points out the arguments of the criticism but not those of the counter-criticism. For example: "However, users of Adblock have argued that web advertisements have become too invasive with video, audio, increasing load times, and using relatively excessive resources." 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
drop down history disabled
It is too complicated to opt out of drop down history with FIREFOX so when it is a potential problem I leave the FIREFOX browser and go to another. Many others to choose from. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Vote to Move
I suggest we move this article to Adblock Plus, which is by far the more common name, and redirect Adblock to the new location. Current behavior is to redirect Adblock Plus to this, the less common name. Google searches show roughly 1,190,000 for "adblock +plus" versus roughly 1,170,000 for "adblock -plus". Mr. Bene (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- A 1.7% difference in search results is in no way a good reason to move the article. But personally I think the article should be split up into two. Adblock is the original extension which inspired many other renditions, while Adblock Plus is the current and only supported extension, with many more features than the original Adblock. 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Some guyes did another website to protest against whyfirefoxisblock (now down) : it's called http://whyisfirefoxblocked.com/ with that funny message : "Why is firefox blocked?
Because some douche wants to infect your computer with popups, search bars and endless ads, the same kind of douche that made you get Firefox in the first place because of horrific popups, search bars and endless ads." With just under a link pointing towards getfirefox.com
Firefox is no longer blocked
as of currently, the webmaster danny carlton setup a script to redirect firefox users (with adblock enabled) to yahoo.com, Firefox users who either whitelist the site or disable/don't have adblock can see the site just fine. You can't really insult the guy for doing what he did, because he found another way that didn't involve pointless insults. The site features overly political content, and takes a christian/rightwing stance on things. (if you are going to attack him for that, you probably have no business being on his site in the first place) Atomic1fire (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly a "Christian" stance, but definitely a right wing and racist site (every 2nd or 3rd post features an attack on those untermenschen who happened to be born with dusky skin). Who really cares anyway? It's just some random loony's blog (with barely any commenters), and his way of getting free publicity for it completely failed, as it only brought attention from people who were disgusted by his thoughts. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
In need of a big clean up
As already mentioned this page is entitled Adblock but Adblock is no longer compatible with current versions of Firefox and nearly all of the content is related to a different add-on, Adblock Plus. Also I feel Information about filter subscriptions should be moved to separate page. Also the constant references to filterset G do not add anything to the article.
It seems the powers that be would rather spend time their time pointlessly removing other people contributions rather than improving the article themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howmister (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Bias against AdBlock
I strongly disagree with the premise and the tone of the following sentence.
While Adblock was mainly a response to websites with unethical use of online advertisements (sites with obtrusive advertisements, such as pop-ups), the use of the extension (particularly with some of the filter subscriptions) also affects website operators who use more ethical advertising practices.
First of all, the writer draws a distinction between unethical and ethical advertising, which presumably implies unsolicited banners telling you where to buy a Mercerdes are 'ethical' (or 'unobtrusive'), whereas a popup with an identical message is 'unethical' or 'obtrusive'. Doesn't this distinction strike you as arbitrary, even artificial? Are we to put cosmetic ads in the same category as cancer research ones, into the 'ethical' category? Let us ethically fill a quarter of someone's internet browser with L'Oreal, unobtrusively of course. Who says that a Coke ad is 'unobtrusive'? I find them extremely obtrusive, and resent seeing Coke on billboards, buses, student diaries, television commercials, everywhere in fact. Even the phrase 'more ethical' is misleading, since it suggests 'ethical' people trying to do people a good turn by their advertising. Please take out this nonsense language. Coke is not 'The Society for Global Ethics', nor is any of institutions referred to who purportedly provide 'more ethical advertising practices'.
It is true that many (but not all) websites depend on advertising for their revenue, but it is not for wikipedia to tell people they must view that advertising, or that if they do not, they are thieves, unless Wikipedia has some social or commercial agenda of which I am unaware - and if that is the case, I do beg your pardon. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It is funny that the "personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales" goes out of its way to avoid ad blockers by using javacript. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This change goes against mozilla addons guidelines. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies/reviews
the features must adhere to the following requirements: * The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes. * All changes must be opt-in, meaning the user must take non-default action to enact the change. * The opt-in dialog must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change. * Uninstalling the add-on restores the user's original settings if they were changed.
You should consider the entire text instead of quoting something out of context. Here's the portion of the text that's missing:
Whenever an add-on includes any unexpected feature that: * compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties), * changes default settings like the homepage or search engine, or * changes settings or features in other add-ons or deactivates them altogether the features must adhere to the following requirements: ...
AdBlock April fools 2012?
I added a legalities section as I felt it was important. All sentences backed up with references.--12:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have moved most of my response to Talk:Ad_filtering#Is ad filtering legal?, this is probably the better place to discuss it. Richiez (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Relation to internet advertising isn't fully described
So if AdBlock is on every browser, is this the end of the ad industry? If yes, does ad industry largely rely on user ignorance, or lack of knowledge about AdBlock? Can advertisers bypass AdBlock? Yurivict (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
See Also - Dec. 2013
Created a "See Also" subsection for the article, mirrored on the similar section in the AdBlock article, but with links to:
Ethics of Adblocking via BBC - Dec. 2013
BBC had an interesting article earlier this month on the ethics of adblocking and it's ripe for material that could be mined to improve this article. I'm sorry I dont'have the time to do it but wanted to bring it to your attention. Also wondering if the mention of controversy about acceptable ads program shouldn't be modified to note that controversy wasn't just on adblock plus forum + social media sites but was covered by MSM.
Blinking, beeping, auto-playing. Popping up, over, under. Tracking, intruding, unsettling. If the internet was a pretty face, advertising would be its wart.
Thankfully, if getting "a great six pack in weeks!" isn't your thing, you can simply flick a switch and use an adblocker - software that banishes the sight and hushes the din of irritating advertising all over the web.
The appeal is obvious, and millions have done it, but should you?According to one count, 84% of the top 100 websites in the world rely on advertising to generate revenue...
source: "Is it ethical to block adverts online?" by Dave Lee | Technology reporter, BBC News | 4 December 2013 | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25219922
Removal of information by ip
Original Adblock was confused with AdBlock (a.k.a. BetaFish Adblocker)
The first paragraph contains the line "It is a fork of the original Adblock extension, developed by Michael McDonald, which is most recently had an update on March 11, 2015." However, the original Adblock extensions saw its last stable release in 2003 and was discontinued in 2007 (see repository history under http://www.mozdev.org/source/browse/adblock/).
The stated date (March 11, 2015) happens to be the same date when AdBlock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBlock) 2.19 was released which is why I assume that the author of this sentence confused those two separate extensions. Therefore I'd suggest that this sentence should be changed to "It is a fork of the original Adblock extension, developed by Michael McDonald, which has been discontinued." Greiner12 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Lee, Dave (4 December 2013). ""Is it ethical to block adverts online?"". BBC News. Retrieved 20 December 2013.