Comments on: FF AdBlock add-on blocking local images http://36flavours.com/2008/03/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/ A taste of something different... Thu, 19 Aug 2010 02:12:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Wardy http://36flavours.com/2008/03/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Wardy Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:05:39 +0000 http://sha.re.it/2008/03/16/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/#comment-7 I did actually note in the original email that I was using the Filterset.G filter list, and curiously it also doesn't seem to contain a generic match against simply the word "advertising" nor the relevant domain so I'm not actually quite sure what it's matching on, and going to have to take a better look. The intention is not to fault Adblock/Plus so much, more to point out the obscure situations that can arise as a result of their use, no matter how widespread, and how best to avoid them for the sake of consistency on our websites. Your defence of Adblock Plus, though admirable, is rather unnecessary. And yes, it is a false positive. I did actually note in the original email that I was using the Filterset.G filter list, and curiously it also doesn’t seem to contain a generic match against simply the word “advertising” nor the relevant domain so I’m not actually quite sure what it’s matching on, and going to have to take a better look.

The intention is not to fault Adblock/Plus so much, more to point out the obscure situations that can arise as a result of their use, no matter how widespread, and how best to avoid them for the sake of consistency on our websites. Your defence of Adblock Plus, though admirable, is rather unnecessary.

And yes, it is a false positive.

]]> By: admin http://36flavours.com/2008/03/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/comment-page-1/#comment-6 admin Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:04:46 +0000 http://sha.re.it/2008/03/16/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/#comment-6 Wladimir, thanks for your response and clarification on this matter. It turn's out that Filterset.G was in fact in use on the user's machine, explaining the results achieved here. Wladimir, thanks for your response and clarification on this matter. It turn’s out that Filterset.G was in fact in use on the user’s machine, explaining the results achieved here.

]]> By: Wladimir Palant http://36flavours.com/2008/03/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Wladimir Palant Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:28:09 +0000 http://sha.re.it/2008/03/16/ff-adblock-add-on-blocking-local-images/#comment-5 Neither Adblock nor Adblock Plus block anything "automatically" - it always happens according to the list of filters the user has defined. Since the user isn't aware of adding that filter, he probably uses one of the pre-made filter lists. For Adblock there is only Filterset.G, for Adblock Plus there is a bunch of them (http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions). At least EasyList (most popular filter list for Adblock Plus) doesn't have a filter for the word "advertising" - and in general filter list maintainers tend to fix false positives. Though in that case it is hard to tell whether it actually is a false positive... Neither Adblock nor Adblock Plus block anything “automatically” – it always happens according to the list of filters the user has defined. Since the user isn’t aware of adding that filter, he probably uses one of the pre-made filter lists. For Adblock there is only Filterset.G, for Adblock Plus there is a bunch of them (http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions). At least EasyList (most popular filter list for Adblock Plus) doesn’t have a filter for the word “advertising” – and in general filter list maintainers tend to fix false positives. Though in that case it is hard to tell whether it actually is a false positive…

]]>