Adblock Plus

I read through what constitutes an acceptable ad, but there was no mention on CPU usage. I feel this is a gaping hole that needs to be corrected.

My number one reason for wanting to block ads is my laptop battery life is cut in half when I let it sit on sites that have ads from GoogleAdServices.com, as it has one of my cores sit around 20% of CPU constantly, even when there is a static ad.

At work, the machines there take an extra 5-15 seconds to load a page which has ads from GoogleAdServices.com as well. They are dektops, so I don't have to worry about battery life. But I do have to be concerned about the excess amount of electricity that these are generating.

As the network admin, I put in wildcard DNS entries to block these sites en masse. However, I get complaints that Google Shopping does not work properly when I do this.

Hopefully the definition here of "acceptable ads" is modified to include a "reasonable CPU usage" addendum. I feel this might be the most sought after reason to block ads.

That criterion is a bit too end-user-dependent to verify on Eyeo's end.

lewisje wrote:That criterion is a bit too end-user-dependent to verify on Eyeo's end.

I must say, after trying this out, it seems to block all the ads that were taking up the high CPU usage. The browser runs much faster with less CPU. I am thoroughly impressed ! After I am done using a legitimate sight that relies on ads, I turn them back on, find one I like, and click on it to view it.

Most sites seem to use GoogleAdServices.com, which has gotten really bad lately. The other day I had a Google ad redirect the entire page to a fake adobe flash download site, and the browser actually downloaded the file without me clicking anything (I always have to click SAVE and choose a location). Windows Defender caught the download and stopped it.

Are you talking about ads on the acceptable list ? Examples ?
I hope you already scanned your system for malware.