Google Chrome now includes the ability to completely block resources from loading inside the browser, and the latest incarnation of the AdBlock extension for Chrome is using this "beforeload" event to not only hide ads from the user but prevent them from downloading entirely. This brings the Chrome AdBlock extension in line with …
Ad blocking is all well and ok
I'll need a NoScript replacement before I totally leave Firefox though.
I'll need a NoScript replacement before I totally leave Firefox though
If you need that then the easy replacement is Opera, use the site preferences in it to decide whether a site can run scripts or not, no need to install any third party extensions to get the job done.
If you do want the chromium feel then try SRWare Iron, a fork of Chrome. The latest version runs all the Chrome extensions, and has content setting taht can be set to block jECMAscript, plugins and others then set exceptions to allow them on trusted sites.
You know Opera comes with a FULL content blocker (not just a adblocker), NoScript, GreaseMonkey and BookmarkSync all built right in?
This is non-news, it;s only Chrome playing catchup to what Opera has had for years. You can block whole domains from loading their content or scripts.
One problem with Opera
No Source Code. For many people, that's a deal-breaker.
The problem is...
Everyone knows about Opera, yet still no one cares....
???? My mum doesn't care about sourcecode (or even know what it means), nor does anyone I know. That argument is irrational to the extreme.
You can argue both ways, closed source means hackers aren't reading your code looking for exploits to take advantage of.
Security through obfuscation
Yes, but by opening up you *have* to be more scrupulous with your security - and therefore the open models will in theory be more secure as they have many more eyes checking for bugs.
Many of those who despite Opera because not being opensource are running Windows!
blind faith, just convincing theyself
my requirements, my choice
I found the "content blocking" in Opera to be cumbersome, ineffective, and, quite frankly, useless.
You are being short-sighted
"closed source means hackers aren't reading your code looking for exploits to take advantage of" -- no, but there are still ways to find exploits without reading the Source Code.
Open Source means that for every person looking for exploits to take advantage of, there are ten people looking for exploits to fix before they actually get exploited. And also, when you know other people are looking at the code you are writing, you tend to take more care over it in the first place. Look at the first releases of OpenOffice.org and Mozilla for examples of what people thought they could get away with by concealing the Source Code.
Anyway, I bet you wouldn't buy a packet of biscuits that didn't have the ingredients on the side. Even if you don't know what a particular ingredient is or what effect it's likely to have on your body, you could show it to an expert.
That was my last reason for using Firefox. Well I suppose there's always skinning. Chrome skins are pretty poor.
You might want to checkout Opera, everything is customizable in Opera, locations of bars (top/bottom/left/right), and there are some nice skins to download.
The content blocking in Opera, if you know how to set it up, is FAR superior to what AdBlock+ offers, simply because it's a pre-load content blocker. if you block a domain with a wildcard NOTHING from that domain gets loaded, no ads, no flash, no scripts, no cookies, nothing.
A simple list of 20 or so domains gets rid of the vast majority of annoyances on the net (you can get more comprehensive list from http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/ )
look at it from both sides
I can see why a lot of people want to use an ad block tool when they browse but I have to say I have some ethical issues with them. I don't like to see ads plastered all over a website and I hate intrusive ads that get in the way of the user experience but if I come across a site that has ads like that I just make a point of not visiting again.
On the flip side I maintain an informative website and the (very small) ad revenue I receive goes some way towards offsetting the costs involved with this. I work hard to ensure that my ads are relevant and don't ruin the customer experience. If everyone blocked those ads I would seriously have to reconsider the time and effort I put into the site.
If you want decent, free online content then you have to accept the fact that webmasters need to find a way to pay to keep it running. If we all used AdBlock how long would El Reg last?
A good point, unfortunately no one so far has been able to code an ad blocker that can stop stupid, big, invasive ads from those that are reasonable and relevant! If only...
I find El Reg's adverts to be OK, as flash is off most of the time in my browser (so no annoying movements), and they are actually relevant to my IT interests.
A Flash blocker gets rid of the really intrusive ads that move around and block my view of the content. Then any ad site that throws a popup gets tossed into /etc/hosts with an address of 127.0.0.1. Other than that, I let the ads in.
If everyone used AdBlock
You are quite correct, if everyone used AdBlock then lots of sites would probably end up closing down through lack of revenue. However the happy reality is that the vast majority of people don't know how to install AdBlock, or don't care to install it, and that simple fact is what enables those that do to carry on without it being a significant threat.
The Daily WTF
That site didn't have much ads. Suddenly, it started having those annoying ads everywhere, including the Scientology ones (Hail Xenu!) and other crap. The readers complained about this, and (big shock!) the owner decided to ditch the crappy ads. He put up his own ad service, which was better focused to the site (only IT ads) and it worked. Still, there are a lot of jackasses who still use AdBlock, even when the ads aren't intrusive or irrelevant.
But people who actively block ads would never click them anyway, trust me! That's why they are blocked to begin with! So you're not loosing out (well maybe not if you get paid for the ads just being displayed and not actually clicked on)
My sister doesn't even know what Firefox is let alone know how to install something, she'll look at your ads I'm sure, as for me, I'm happy not to thanks. Maybe I *might* support certain sites in some other way as I sometimes do (and independent content creators) but advertising isn't the way for me.
There's nothing ethically wrong with blocking ads I don't think either. You choose to pump your site out to the world, what happens to it when it gets inside my computer is my business. You could always find some way to detect I'm blocking ads and bar me from accessing the site. The one site I've seen that being done on before I never visited again even with add blocking disabled!
Everyone won't block ads, don't worry, that will never happen. If Firefox came with adblock as standard there would be outrage and web-masters would throw up error messages on their sites telling users "This site can only be viewed with Internet Explorer Version 6.0 and higher!!!!" <--LOLZ
Ad's only part of the problem
It's the tracking cookies & scripts, along with the LSO's that I'm pissed off with. Try sell me something fine! but market something at me & then call me a demographic along with tracking all the websites I visit so you can market at me better when I don't want all that crap in the first place is when I no problem blocking ads & scripts. Want help paying the hosting costs then ask for a donation, my privacy comes at a higher price.
/mines the one with the fortified hosts file in the pocket.
@The Daily WTF
"Still, there are a lot of jackasses who still use AdBlock, even when the ads aren't intrusive or irrelevant. Freetards!"
Not always. I have real trouble keeping my concentration on pages when there are images or text within my peripheral vision jumping, moving or flashing around. Being able to selectively disable java on certain pages (with noscript) is a real plus for me, it makes the difference to be able to read a page, or not.
Perhaps it's the most frequent pages I visit, but "not intrusive OR irrelevant" almost doesn't exist.
More importantly, I really don't have the enthusiasm to "fix" offending pages as I get to them, I leave Adblock and NoScript on all the time, "fixing" them afterwards as required.
If that makes me a freetard, then so be it. It lets me function as a sort-of normal member of the community, verses be a blubbering mess in the corner of the room.
The Register has ads?
Like so many others I use AdBlock and NoScript. I ignore the ads on television just the same as I used to ignore them on the web. No one is losing revenue from me not seeing them because I wouldn't have clicked on them anyway.
Theres nothing unethical about it...
The odds that i'm going to buy something from a random advertisement on a random website are lower that the odds that i may someday buy a snow cone from the devil. so pushing adds on me is equally as unethical as me blocking them.
Do i buy thing from advertisements, yes, all the time actually (i love newegg), but only from advertisements i'm interested in, and those advertisements are delivered to me via email, and are done so by my choice, ie the opt-in method.
People seriously need to stop with the whole argument about ad blocking, because the people youre raising the argument with / about aren't going to buy anything anyway!
I remember a couple years back reading several stories about the bible thumping nut job Danny Carlson, throwing a fit about this very subject and claiming he developed a detection and blocking tool that was going to change the internet, it would detect browsers running ad block plus and redirect the user to a landing page explaining how they were the spawn of Satan and the root of all that was evil, by using ad block plus users were taking food off his children's plates. my first thought was, oh dear lord he reproduced? after coming to terms with that, i decided to head on over to his website to see what all the fuss was about, when i got to his website, nothing happened, i was expecting to get redirected all dramatic like, and nothing, no redirect, no sermon about being the spawn of Satan, then i realized, his little side show was being blocked by no script, so i left him a comment pointing out how much of a jackass he was, because most people who are smart enough to install ad block plus are also smart enough to install and use no script! Life is good...
Do you use the fast-forward to skip TV ads?
Most telivision adverts
Are DVR friendly these days. All the information is present on screen for the duration. Fast-forward just turns them in to blipverts. Which make fat people explode.
I just ignore the bullsheet ads simply because they are worthless to me. I don't need some unqualified geek telling me what I should buy or trying to force me to look at his attempts to make a living. Same old song, local vendors get all pi$$ed if local folk don't support them and they go out of business. Hint here: it's not a potential buyer's responsibility to keep you in business. Either you do that yourself or you don't. And while you may not be creating intrusive ads, well, that's not for you to decide. That's for the viewer to decide and all ads are intrusive to me.
If you don't like the business you're in or can't make a go of it then go do something else. But given the popularity of ad blocking software I'd say you and those in your business are missing the boat in a lot of ways.
That's fine, your site wouldn't get blocked...
Well, not by me, however the numerous sites that just load hideous attention seeking ads that take over your screen can be blocked quite easily and forgotten, which benefits you in that now I am not so well trained at sidestepping ads in my head, i might actually see your more pertinent ads...
load times and infections
I use adblock/noscript on sites such as the reg and this does two things - stops intrusive (but not all) ads and secondly stops remote js from executing. Given that el reg has been enfected before via remote ad scripts our glorious hacks have allowed I and many otehr will not allow the js mess that it adservers to infect our browsing experience.
Sites such as the indy and telegraph do ads right - non intrusive and in certain cases quite elegant.
All you web survivalists (read 'nutters') running NoScript and AdBlock must visit some pretty 'interesting' sites to need such things. I only rarely see annoying ads that-must-be-killed. The rest of the time I don't really notice them. Maybe you're all just more 'sensitive'. Awwwww.
Sod the ads, I do it for the speed
Think how much less of a page such as El Reg you're actually downloading if you turn off Flash and disable ads. Far fewer transactions, far faster browser.
"Sod the ads, I do it for the speed"
My sentiments exactly. Also I use a PAYG dongle for my internet access at the moment, so each ad impression costs _ME_ to download. I am not paying good money to download ads at all, no sir!
On a good day, catching up with elReg would cost me in the region of 50M of data traffic. Doesn't seem like much, but over the course of a week could cost a fiver or more and when you are poor it is a lot of money to pay just for ads.
Amazing, simply amazing...
I find it amazing how people like our good friend AC here, i would call him by his name, but i cant, he choose to post anonymously, have a big enough set that they'll drop bombs like the one above, calling no script / ad block plus users nutters, but he lacks the moral fiber to show his face as he says it.
So heres to you Mr. identifier of internet nutters with a bag over your head! ,,!,,
...and the page space...
Large areas of the webpage are suddenly magically filled with content instead of ads thanks to Opera's urlfilter.ini...
... and as for you nutters using firewalls or anti-virus software! Wow you guys must have issues!! Maybe you're all just more sensitive about being part of a bot-net? Awwwwwww.
NoScript ain't just about the ads matey - I'm glad I don't do tech support on your machine, that's all I'm saying.
Just installed it on Chrome for Mac and it works well. I might even try Chrome on my Windows machine at home now - I have been using Opera as Firefox has been rather clunky lately, but even Opera has a pretty poor excuse for content blocking.
Poor old Firefox needs to fight back now or else. Even then, though, I doubt it will ever be as unpopular as IE (at least for home users).
I prefer a flash blocker to an ad blocker. I visit some great free sites, and they probably get a revenue stream from ads loaded and clicked. I'd rather they can still display noflash unobtrusive adverts, but blocks the stupid ones that float around the screen and spawn popups when you try and get rid of them.
re: Flash blocker
This is the point, in Opera (and now Chrome), it does not care if it's an advert, flash, cookie or script, it's the domain you are blocking, not the type of content it is.
In Opera, you can make El-Reg load 100x quicker just by blocking 2 adware domains that slow things down. (if you switch on the Advanced progress bar, you can see what sites are where all the delays taking place are).
Who is gonna pay?
I don't like the ads, but if everyone starts to use ad blockers, then the advertisers are not going to pay.
If they don't pay, then who will...
Who is paying now for the ads that nobody sees?
I've never used ad blocking but I am considering it, not because I mind the ads, but because everything else gets held up waiting for them. Every time somebody gives up waiting, not only has their time been wasted, the advertiser is being ripped-off by a useless advertising company that doesn't have enough bandwidth to deliver the ads quickly enough to be seen.
Paris to emphasise the concept of staring at something blank.
I can't actually get it straight in my head. Reconciling a company like Google, whos main source of income comes from advertising ... actually developing a tool which blocks adverts.
It must be my time of the month or something, because I just don't see how this hangs together.
Some mistake surely......
"Firefox was able to capture 25 per cent of the browser market in large part because it offered extensions, and many have pinned a large chunk of its success on AdBlock Plus in particular. "
"But you can bet that its internal data suggests that even if an ad blocker is available for its browser, most netizens won't bother to install it."
There's a fairly obvious contradiction between those two quotes - and I'm pretty sure that the "fail" is on the part of those who think that AdBlock Plusis responsible for a large chunk of the success of Firefox.
Chrome phone home?
When the time comes that I can turn off all of the phone home, automatic update checking in Chrome, I might consider installing it on my Windows boxes.
You already can:
Heard of Chromium?
Chrome without the phone home ?
It can be switched off, just use SRWare Iron instead. All the best bits of Chrome, but without the phone home bits.
Portable version available as well, I find it a decent second browser.
Or Opera, and benefit from a speed and functionality at the same time.
Everyone is apparently OK with letting ads get even that close to their browsers?
I block them at my transparent proxy, using the adblock filter lists, so I don't need to make browser choices based on adblock capabilities. And Privoxy elimiates a fair amount of other web garbage along with the ads.
This is especially nice for my mobile devices, where I don't need to be wasting cycles in the browser.
...that's nice for you.
Most people have a life....but whatever excites you.
So the lesson to be learned here is to simply block googles adservers. It's all very easy to do and I wonder what google would do if it couldn't sell ad space.
Judging by the amount of money it takes in I guess it would have to close up.
On a side note why are people not allowed to photo/film police because of wiretapping laws but google is permitted to go around the world and spy on everyone.
Just a question is all, aren't they wiretapping as much as some schmoe with a camera is?
"On a side note why are people not allowed to photo/film police because of wiretapping laws but google is permitted to go around the world and spy on everyone.
Just a question is all, aren't they wiretapping as much as some schmoe with a camera is?"
Consider Google's economic contribution in the countries it operates in (taxes, jobs etc) against Schmoe with a camera..................
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- Bose says today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent battle
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Review Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid: The plug-in for plutocrats