Google ads

JohnJohn · Post by **JohnJohn** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:19 pm

Hi,

Could someone explain to my why the filters that block Google ads (http://pagead2.$subdocument and http://pagead2.*?$~other) don't block the initial JavaScript file (whose URL is http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js) but instead hides them. Wouldn't it be more time-efficient to block the JavaScript at the source?

Thanks.

fanboy · Post by **fanboy** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:29 pm

Rick's list doesn't block them to avoid anti-adblock scripts picking it up.

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:03 am

fanboy wrote:Rick's list doesn't block them to avoid anti-adblock scripts picking it up.

That is true. Doing that takes the control of that script away from the site owner (which is on the site owners own server). Doing it that way allows that script to run and instead blocks the 3rd-party ads that the script tries to call.

This was an anti-adblock code published by Danny Carlton. I simply created a variation to stop it. That change was the direct reason why Danny Carlton blocked all Firefox users (if you never heard about that internet news story

). The variation probably would not be necessary anymore as I think it has since been abandoned ... but it's still ok for now.

adamh · Post by **adamh** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:37 am

How would that affect those users who use a hosts file to route the googleadsyndication or whatever server(s) to 127.0.0.1?

And who ALSO happen to use AdBlock(Plus)?

rick752 · Post by **rick752** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:48 am

I'm not 100% positive how that plays out ... so I will take an educated guess (I don't use hosts files).

I would imagine that blocking anything that prevents a "checked" item from downloading would have the same results.

A Hosts File would already be preventing that domain from downloading to your pc (also before Firefox would even see it)... this would prevent ABP from ever seeing it in the first place. No matter how the request is rejected, I would think the anti-blocking results would be the same ... you would be seen as someone using an adblocker. A way that that anti-adblocking check-script would be thwarted would be to allow the host's "call" script and then block the items that it is requesting.

Hope that makes sense ... I'm open to correction.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:49 pm

How would that affect those users who use a hosts file to route the googleadsyndication or whatever server(s) to 127.0.0.1?

Exactly the same, this approach doesn't look at how you blocked the ads (and whether you blocked them at all or simply have a bad internet connection) - you will see some stupid message and will go away looking for some site with a more sane owner.