Adblock Plus

Element filter makes site unusable.
http://cvvp.nva.gov.lv/vakances It's a government site for people seeking jobs, so it's kinda important.

https://reports.adblockplus.org/26a32c4 ... 140ef2e779

Fixed in EasyList https://hg.adblockplus.org/easylist/rev/9365018a2a16

Thanks! Still needs a fix in Fanboy's List.

Doesn't the EasyList policy dictate that this sort of thing should be fixed in the supplemental subscription ?


@anonymous74100

If you add
To your subscription it will act like a whitelist and fix the site for anyone using your list regardless of the parent subscription.

@Hubird
I didn't know how element whitelists work.
Thanks.

Hubird wrote:Doesn't the EasyList policy dictate that this sort of thing should be fixed in the supplemental subscription ?

Right but I wasn't aware of this:

Hubird wrote:...it will act like a whitelist and fix the site for anyone using your list regardless of the parent subscription.

@MonztA
Are you going to undo the fix?

I insist that element hiding rules (being fall back from blocking) should include the domain name and not to be "generic".
Besides the risk of breaking stuff, it is rather obvious that element hiding can be "redundant" on sites where ads are effectively blocked.

It depends on what you mean with "practical".

anonymous74100 wrote:@MonztA
Are you going to undo the fix?

I have to ask Michael first how we deal with such cases. I will let you know if the fix will be reverted. Michael will probably reply to this thread as I will point him to it.

LorenzoC wrote:It depends on what you mean with "practical".

Sorry, I deleted my post (I thought it would not have been read yet) as I did not want to rehash old arguments. Any of the forum regulars will be well aware of your position on subscriptions and hiding rules.

Ares2 has reported that an exception element rule does not always take precedence over the general rule in every instance. Wladimir, would you please be able to clarify how Adblock Plus should handle such filters? I was not previously aware of the override mechanism in the extension.

Looks like it depends on the order they are applied?

I've used this example: http://www.heise.de/

1. ##.position_1 -> Apply -> Refresh
2. ~heise.de##.position_1 -> Apply -> Refresh
=> element not hidden

1. ~heise.de##.position_1 -> Apply -> Refresh
2. ##.position_1 -> Apply -> Refresh
=> element hidden (a least for me)

I can confirm it.

Oh ok, it would be nice if we could have some consistency.