Adblock Plus

Am considering moving from Adblock to Adblock+.

Is there a way to completely block a site in AdblockPlus?

For example, the filter "news.google.com" completely blocks "http://news.google.com/" URL in Adblock. You will not be able to get to the site at all, as expected.

In AdblockPlus that filter blocks some pictures and links but still manages to load the URL Weird.

Thanks

You'd better try the host file.

Why would I want to maintain my filters in 2 different places? Adblock handles it just fine and my impression was that AblockPlus had claimed to be more advanced than the original Ablock... maybe not. Thanks

Why would you want to block a site with Firefox, but not with IE ?

Guest: Adblock plus blocks ads, it's not some site blocking netnanny.

Because I do not use IE (hint: IE runs poorly on GNU/Linux).

Guest: Adblock plus blocks ads, it's not some site blocking netnanny.

That's a poor excuse for something that the original Adblock does very easily. Well, whatever...

You can also disable or uninstall original Adblock, so "net nanny" -feature does not work that well
And also you can use other browsers.

Find some other solution, something that protects all browsers and is not easy to turn off.

@Guest: Just stick to Adblock 0.5 by MCM, silly.. it has Siteblocking, and REAL DIV blocking.

Most of the users here, and the new author are clearly irrational about most features that were already in adblock.

Guest: Adblock plus 0.7 blocks ads, it's not some site blocking netnanny.

fuck yourself.

$3.50/month.

Netnanny is not free. and it doesn't run on linux.

Anonymous wrote:Netnanny is not free. and it doesn't run on linux.

So there is really a netnanny -program, i did not know that:)

Anyway, use old adblock then, if you don't find any other solution.

Anonymous wrote:@Guest: Just stick to Adblock 0.5 by MCM, silly.. it has Siteblocking, and REAL DIV blocking.

Most of the users here, and the new author are clearly irrational about most features that were already in adblock.

Check your facts before making bold statements like that. There is DIV blocking in adblock plus. It's even better then original because it can block even more elements then just DIVs. And I have to agree siteblocking is better done with host files. And they are VERY easy to use. There is even some you can get that block porn sites and illegal sites already made up. And are maintained!

I find it funny when people claim others are irrational just because they don't agree with YOUR point of view. I see this used a lot on forums.. it only makes YOU look irrational to say something like that. Like if everyone doesn't agree with you somehow they are irrational.

But I agree with you on using the other version. If you find siteblocking IS needed, in this manner, by all means use the other version that has it. No one can make you use a version that doesn't have what you want in it. Why make a big deal out of it. At least there is something out there to use that does what you want. Right?

so irrational was the wrong word to use.. we all have opinions


Adblock plus 0.7 has div blocking, but it's not natural, and when i said real i mean true adblock syntax.. the one in 0.7 is NOT backwords compatible blahblah.com##dl[id="blahblah"]>div:first-child is nothing like /blahblah\.com.*\(blahblah\)/ or blahblah.com/#DIV(blahblah) which would you prefer to understand? thats like using html syntax in a c++..

another thing, Host files are dated, sure they'll have protection for the entire computer, but they are exhaustive, they get big easily, they are hard to maintain especially for new users, they cant be disabled for one browser and enabled in another, they dont support simple keywords like regular expressions, they dont work on mac or linux..

At least there is something out there to use that does what you want. Right?

Of course.

I was reading a blog I read daily and seen this. It might be of interest to the orginal poster of this thread. I don't know much about it. But it appears to be free. K9 Free Internet Filter

I don't think it works on linux. oh well maybe some can use it anyway. Says it's planning MAC support soon. Just info , I hope, to help.