Easylist allowing googlesyndication?

chewey · Post by **chewey** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:10 pm

Adblock Plus Fan wrote:No what I meant was: Is this a situation of an actual detection method offered by google?

No, this has nothing to do with google.

Or is it the webmasters of xooit.xooit.com/index.php and virusphoto.com who found out a clever way to use those google scripts?

Neither is it even a script.

Their dectection method needs a popularly blocked string in a URL that doesn't exist.

Defeating this detection basically means to specifically whitelist nothing

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:28 pm

This is just an individual's idea to try to get around the blocking.

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:28 am

rick752 wrote:Once the webmasters realize that this type of detection can be beaten and they stop some of these silly actions, I will remove it.

Why can't they just understand that ABP users will NOT click on those ads anyway because they HATE ads? If they didn't waste time trying do stuff like this so we have to waste time fixing it, it would be a win/win for both sides because nothing would change anyway ... the ads still would'nt be clicked on by ABP users AND it just gives user's MORE of a reason to hate ads

Because they are honest people trying to make a living, and would just as soon thieves not steal their resources.

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:52 am

(I see you took your rant from the Adsense Forum .. to AMO's ABP Discussions ... to here)

Nobody's stealing anything, Danny. We're ALL "ignoring" the ads whether we have to see them or not. "No clicky ... no money". So what's the difference? MUCH bigger sites than any of yours have figured out the logic that says, "If they don't like ads, they won't click the ads anyway. But if we don't annoy the users that block them, they may refer others to the site that might like ads". People who actually want to click on ads won't use an adblocker. But advertising is only a first concern of users ... the second annoyance to users that is growing even faster is PRIVACY. Ads, trackers, cookies, marketing analysis and privacy invasion are all going hand-in-hand here with the allowance of advertising. If it isn't us blocking it, it will be someone or something else.

And why does everyone on the internet nowadays think that they have a "right" to money for typing up some rant or opinion of their own or using someone else's repurposed information or links? We make a program here and support it for FREE! Do you see any ads on this site? You may think that you are honest (and maybe you are), but we are better people because we don't 'EXPECT something' except a little appreciation.

Telling people that they are "thieves" is terrific ... who is your PR guy? Did you see where your rant went on AMO? Even some of your own adsense members thought you were a little 'over the top' with that technique.

The last time someone on a large site publicly wrote saying that ABP was bad because it blocked all of their ads, downloads for ABP that day on AMO increased over 50,000 downloads above average for just one day.

Look, the next time you think you found a way to get around ABP, don't publish it publicly ok? We can't do anything about something that we don't know about.

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:35 am

rick752 wrote:Look, the next time you think you found a way to get around ABP, don't publish it publicly ok? We can't do anything about something that we don't know about.

Go ahead, try. You're not that talented. I'm making the code as widely available as possible so Ad Block users will realize what people really think of them.

fanboy · Post by **fanboy** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:03 am

its not like its a huge secret or anything, its well known, try googling "adblock detection".

DannyCarlton wrote:Go ahead, try. You're not that talented. I'm making the code as widely available as possible so Ad Block users will realize what people really think of them.

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:07 am

Danny, I hope you realize that I removed your blocks yesterday. I even left a couple of them to you as a present (they are not in my list). Don't you read replies to posts that you leave?
http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1519

I removed them to show you that your own "thief" popup will be your own undoing (I've seen fanatics do this before). I put those whitelists in my EasyList to subtly show you that the technique doesn't work. Actually IT SUCKS! ... especially trying to do it with javascript! Do you think that I haven't seen these before? But do what you have to do ... I'm not going to bother you UNLESS you really want to start p*ssing us off here. Look, if I really wanted to bother you I could have just added:

Code: Select all

jacklewis.net#body

... to the EasyList. Do you think that those little ping-whitelists were the best I could do? ... but I guess I couldn't do that because I have "no talent" for this.

So, I am just going to sit back and watch you (and anyone else who is foolish enough to listen to you) self destruct without doing a thing against you personally.

BTW: You do realize that your popup borderlines on slander don't you? "Thieves"? Be careful how you put things publicly my friend ... there are still laws in the U.S. regarding slander.

"Here's how you uninstall ABP"? They are NOT going to do that! Most people would rather jump off an internet cliff than uninstall ABP because advertising annoys them and invades their privacy so much. You could simply just ask them to whitelist your site with:

Code: Select all

@@|http://jacklewis.net

*EDIT: Now that I have let you do what you feel you have to do, you need to go over to NoScript's support forum and tell THEM that THEY are thieves too. NoScript BY DEFAULT will not only block those ads ... but also that popup ... users WON'T see Adsense OR that popup. Those users won't even notice anything! Because you are determined to use javascript, NoScript is actually more of a threat to you than we are.... and they also are almost as BIG as we are as far as users go. So get your butt over THERE and leave us alone!

Then go to AdMuncher, AdHunter, IE7pro, Stylish, Greasemonkey ....

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:45 am

Food for thought, Danny. (addition to the above post)

You are targeting ONLY ABP users and calling them 'thieves'. These are the same people that love and use a web-based "BLOCKING" program that I (mostly) maintain filtering for in the U.S. to the tune of around 2 million users worldwide.

So basically what I'm asking you is .... ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND?

Besides that ... the day that a webmaster takes 100% responsibility for the content of the 3rd-party ads and its linked content, tracking scripts, cookies, privacy invasion, and possible maleware, adware, or trojans served through his site is the day that I will even listen to this kind of argument

Do you want to sign something that says YOU take responsibility for that stuff right now Danny? ... or just make a public "yes" right here? I'm sure your answer would be a "no" ... you all want the free $$$ without any of the responsibility.
(ps: I also love the fact that you serve ads on your site AND then also ask for donations

)

You want to FORCE people to interact with that 3rd-party stuff? ... then YOU should be responsible for EVERYTHING contained IN them! And in the USA, this could become reality. Does any 'fanatic' really want to go there? Better hope your "forced" ads are as 'clean' as you think otherwise you could be in a whole lot of legal trouble ... "Film at 11:00"

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:08 pm

Never seen a sign outside of a store that says "Loitering not allowed"? Same thing. Don't want to see the ads? Stay away. Oh, and I checked some of the other ad blocking plug ins and programs you mentioned. My newest script cleanly whisks them to my "scold" page. I'll be sure to make the page more generic, since it isn't just ABP doing it. But I have a feeling since my ad revenues have surged since adding the block, other site owners will like the opportunity to run off the dead beats.

There may be millions of people blocking ads, but there are tens if not hundreds of millions of people trying to earn money with simple, unobtrusive ads.

The dynamics of capitalism will squelch toys like ABP. People won't want to foot the bill for freeloaders when they can simply add a simple bit of code and shoo them off elsewhere.

The noscript plugin is its own worst enemy since it will cripple the effectiveness of FireFox. And my site (like many on the internet) utilizes enough javascript that they'll find it almost impossible to use. I really don't worry about a handful of people so naive they think they need to block all javascript. They can surf in their tin foil hats elsewhere.

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:12 pm

rick752 wrote:You are targeting ONLY ABP users and calling them 'thieves'. These are the same people that love and use a web-based "BLOCKING" program that I (mostly) maintain filtering for in the U.S. to the tune of around 2 million users worldwide.

The last estimate I saw put the number of internet users at 1 billion. I should be scared that I'm offending .2%?!?

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:37 pm

rick752 wrote:the day that a webmaster takes 100% responsibility for the content of the 3rd-party ads and its linked content, tracking scripts, cookies, privacy invasion, and possible maleware, adware, or trojans served through his site is the day that I will even listen to this kind of argument Do you want to sign something that says YOU take responsibility for that stuff right now Danny?... or just make a public "yes" right here? I'm sure your answer would be a "no" ... you all want the free $$$ without any of the responsibility.

I use Google Adsense, Text-ad-links, BlogAdSwap (my own business) and ads served via my own installation of phpAdsNew on my 60+ sites. The first two have a sterling reputation for professionalism, integrity and being appropriately descrete. I run BlogAdSwap and my own installation of phpAdsNew, so I can take responsibility for them.

rick752 wrote: (ps: I also love the fact that you serve ads on your site AND then also ask for donations )

I have two kids with a severe congenital condition that requires daily medication, frequent doctor visits and sudden and serious ER visits. My wife was fired from her job a month ago for not returning her boss's romantic advances. (large corporation, wimpy laws) We lost our health insurance when my wife was fired and I can't make enough on the internet because there are too many people that like to enjoy other people's hard work without making any effort to reward them for it, so we were taking donations in an attempt to pay medical bills. Meanwhile I run (for free) the largest site for people with the same condition my children have, where I frequently hear how parents wish there was a way one of them could stay at home to care for their ill child, but they just can't afford to. So my anger at those who intentionally try to take money from people who desparately need it should be understandable.

Two million ABP users who, for the sake of argument, may have clicked on one ad a week (well, well below the average) at 5 cents a click. That's $400,000 a month taken from web sites owners, among them hard working people who are trying to make life a little easier in the face of overwhelming difficulties.

But hey, you guys don't have to be bothered by an ad and a 7 year-old little boy dies because the daycare worker didn't recognize the symptoms of the medical crisis he was in, when either of his parents would have, but had to work because the internet was too unprofitable. I suppose that's somehow even, right.

As for your odd definition of slander. Slander is for the spoken word, libel is for the printed word. Either way it isn't applicable, because no judge or jury would ever deny that someone intentionally bypassing the obvious monetization techniques for a web site while using the resources of that site could not be reasonably refered to as theft.

Adblock Plus Fan · Post by **Adblock Plus Fan** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:40 pm

DannyCarlton wrote:Never seen a sign outside of a store that says "Loitering not allowed"? Same thing.

It is not the same thing you ungrateful git. Do you not get it? Every time we block your links, we save you bandwidth. You should be grateful to us

In case you never noticed, we already have other workarounds besides noscript....
read: http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 2340#12340

DannyCarlton · Post by **DannyCarlton** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:47 am

Adblock Plus Fan wrote:
DannyCarlton wrote:Never seen a sign outside of a store that says "Loitering not allowed"? Same thing.
It is not the same thing you ungrateful git. Do you not get it? Every time we block your links, we save you bandwidth. You should be grateful to us
In case you never noticed, we already have other workarounds besides noscript....
read: http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 2340#12340

Google and Text-Ad-Links would not be my bandwidth and while BlogAdswap and my own phpMyAds are, that's the expense all advertisers are willing to take to display the ads for the chance someone will click on them. If you are accessing my page, though, then you are using my bandwidth, without paying for it by having the ads there.

No, your other "work arounds" no longer work.

Adblock Plus Fan · Post by **Adblock Plus Fan** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:12 am

DannyCarlton wrote:Google and Text-Ad-Links would not be my bandwidth

Every time we block (Removed site, let's not advertise for him) we save you bandwidth

DannyCarlton wrote:BlogAdswap and my own phpMyAds are

And we save saving you money from all that, see we are nice people.

DannyCarlton wrote:No, your other "work arounds" no longer work.

Yes they do

Dr. Evil · Post by **Dr. Evil** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:31 pm

DannyCarlton wrote:I should be scared that I'm offending .2%?!?

But then, why are you so scared of these .2%?