Adblock Plus

Example: http://www.anandtech.com/content/images/bench_cpu.jpg
Say I visit that URL directly, currently the adblock filters (and Firefox's built-in filter system) does not work. How can I make images by themselves get blocked?

Here are a couple of links to FAQ - Basic functionality and writing Adblock Plus filters. But a fast way to do it is by right clicking on the image and selecting 'Adblock Plus: Block image...' at the bottom then it brings up a list of choices in how to block the image and the default one is selected and is usually the best choice, so you could just select 'add filter'. In the first link under the title 'How do I block a banner?'(<--or click that) after the text there is a video that shows what I'm talking about. Hope this helps.

I assume you mean adding:
http://www.anandtech.com/content/images/bench_cpu.jpg
to my block list?

If so, the problem is it doesn't work for me. For example, I add "http://www.anandtech.com/content/images/bench_cpu.jpg"
then in the browser, I go to: http://www.anandtech.com/content/images/bench_cpu.jpg

I see the image. Is there a way to make it not show up if it's in my list?

With that rule added to your filters the picture will not show up anywhere on http://www.anandtech.com but ABP will allow you to load the image on it's own.

Thanks for the confirmation/info.

Is there a way I can keep the image from loading on it's own or should I put this in as a feature request?

I'm not sure what you can do to the the behaviour you desire but for most people (especially subscription authors) the way things work now is preferable.

ABP purpose is to filter objects embedded in Web pages.
So you need:
1. A Web page
2. An external object that is embedded in that page

A secondary purpose is to hide HTML elements that are part of a Web page by changing CCS display properties.
Here you need:
1. A Web page
2. Some HTML element that can be "aimed" through its CSS selector/inheritance.

If you want to deny access from your computer to some IP address or domain or URL, you probably need a proxy.

I went ahead and posted it as a proper feature request.
forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6820

It looks like your suggestion wasn't accepted. But there's a really good alternative here for what you want: forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3986&start=75#p41826

I certainly like the way Opera and SRWare Iron do things (they do prevent navigation to URLs in their blocklists).

Opera's feature is named "block content", not "block sites".
Block content implies that you remove some content from a web page.
I say it again, these features on browsers (or extensions) are not meant either to re-design a whole Web site and even less to "clean" the Internet. They are meant to improve your "user experience" when you visit Web sites by removing (a few) annoyances.

lewisje wrote:I certainly like the way Opera and SRWare Iron do things (they do prevent navigation to URLs in their blocklists).

I sort of like the arguments on both sides.
On one hand, I'd love to have a $ filter option that would redirect filter matches to javascript:window.close();. I love more features.
But on the other hand, some people would call such additional feature for bloat, and development time might be better spent elsewhere since the current behaviour already is useful for identifying false positives.