Block a site completely?

[IceDogg]

@guest I'm not a programmer and I can work with the way adblock plus does it. So, anyone that can understand how DIV blocking works can use the way adblock plus does it. And like I said you can block more with it then the "real" DIV blocking.

You do make a good point on host files. I agree there is a need for an extension to block sites. But I don't think that's what adblock plus or adblock ,for that matter, is designed for. I think it should be a separate extension. This is of course just my opinions and I'm sure others are different. Besides yours of course.

[Guest]

You do make a good point on host files. I agree there is a need for an extension to block sites. But I don't think that's what adblock plus or adblock ,for that matter, is designed for. <b>I think it should be a separate extension</b>.

I disagree. Adblock (but not AdblocPlus) handles it just fine and it's logical and convenient to keep this functionality in one place. So, yes, I'll stick to Adblock for now.

[adum]

I disagree. Adblock (but not AdblocPlus) handles it just fine and it's logical and convenient to keep this functionality in one place. So, yes, I'll stick to Adblock for now.

1) If you are using Site Blocking for security reasons I think this is not the correct way, and the functionallity was not designed with this purpose in mind. Apart from this, it would not be a real adblock feature (just like menu editing with Adblock Plus: you can edit your Firefox menus taking advantage of element hiding as described here, but this is only a "colateral" functionality, and even if you find it useful I think nobody would ask this feature to be included in all adblocks).

2) If you are using it in order to avoid some ad pages (fraud links, which simulate to be other kind of page or link) to be loaded, note that:
* using news.google.com filter in Adblock Plus will load the page, but only with the items without this path (in some pages it will turn out a blank page or with some external elements).
* using this filter in Adblock you will be redirected to a page with a warning message ("page blocked by Adblock"); you do not see the ad page but you are in a new tab with the message displayed.
In both cases you have to go back again, so you have been disturbed anyway.

But you can use Adblock Plus with this (element hiding) filter:
#*(href*=news.google)
Then, if you open www.google.com homepage you will see that the "News" link has disappeared, you do not see it and you cannot click it by mistake. Note that you are still able to access the news page by typing its address in the URL bar, but not because you have been cheated.

[Guest]

We can use adblock how ever the hell we please.

[Peng]

another thing, Host files are dated, sure they'll have protection for the entire computer, but they are exhaustive, they get big easily, they are hard to maintain especially for new users, they cant be disabled for one browser and enabled in another, they dont support simple keywords like regular expressions, they dont work on mac or linux.. [emphasis added]

So /etc/hosts is just a figment of my imagination?

[Guest]

1) If you are using Site Blocking for security reasons...

No.

2) If you are using it in order to avoid some ad pages...

I'm using it to avoid some ad sites and sites that I do not want anything to do with.

[adum]

1) If you are using Site Blocking for security reasons...

No.

2) If you are using it in order to avoid some ad pages...

I'm using it to avoid some ad sites and sites that I do not want anything to do with.

OK, this is exactly the point I was trying to explain (probably not too clearly): if you do not want anything to do with a site: horribleadsite.com, with Adblock Plus you can add this filter:

#*(href*=horribleadsite.com)

and all the links pointing to this site will be removed from any page you visit. So you will not be able to visit this site by clicking a link unless you specifically type "horribledsite.com" in the URL bar and press Enter - but in this case it would be clear that you had changed your mind.

The problem of the current approach of Adblock site blocking is that even if you do not visit the undesired page, if you are cheated or make a mistake and click a link which points to it you are redirected to a page with an Adblock warning message. For me this is not a great deal (it is only my personal opinion).

I would recommend you to test this approach, and only then choose the option which better fits your needs. Some people do not consider necessary or even important options like whitelisting, using multiple filter subscriptions (being able to modifiy individual filters from these subscriptions), enabling/disabling individual filters or complete filtersets, drag and drop when selecting ads to be deleted, hit counting, blocked items information tooltip and element hiding (obviously they do not visit those sites with horrible DIV popups which you must close every time you load the page). But I am not sure if they have really tested these features and decided that they are not worth enough for them, or simply despise them because have never tried.

[Guest]

So you will not be able to visit this site by clicking a link unless you specifically type "horribledsite.com" in the URL bar and press Enter - but in this case it would be clear that you had changed your mind.

Not true. I may cut and paste a link from somewhere or it may come in an email (and AblockPlus does NOT filter links in emails). So, yes, I may be tricked into getting to the site I specifically blocked and the original Adblock certainly has the advantage here.

[adum]

You are right in both cases, but the first one it is only possible if you copy and paste the address from a text (not a link, which would be removed by the filter) without knowing what is this or noticing the URL, and the second one if you receive some kind of spam and click on one of its links (I try to filter all spam, and never click a link from a mail if I do not trust the sender).

Both are theoretically possible, but at least in my case I have never found in that kind of situation, while I found a lot of times this kind of cheating links (obviously with the accomplicement of the webmaster; they were always "obscure" sites: p2p or adult contents) and now I filter them so I only can be fooled once, next time the links are removed forever. As I told before, for me being redirected to a new tab/window with a warning message it is not much better that visiting the ad site (usually almost blank due to the rest of the filters, I include the "horribleadsite.com" both in standard filters and element hiding); I have lost my time anyway.

It is a question of preferences and browser habits; anyway I would encourage you to put to test the procedure I described for a while; depending on the kind of sites you visit, after a short time you can be surprised of the amount of liks that "disappear", specially in certain sites. DIV blocking perhaps would seem to be exclusive for "anti-ad" fanatics, but if you visit p2p and similar sites you will find it really necessary with the increasing number of agressive DIV popups.

NOTE: I assume I am speaking all the time to the same "guest", but even if you do not want to register and login, some kind of name/signature would be clerarer for all

[Guest]

[quote]OK, this is exactly the point I was trying to explain (probably not too clearly): if you do not want anything to do with a site: horribleadsite.com, with Adblock Plus you can add this filter:

#*(href*=horribleadsite.com)

[quote]

Umm... I'd rather use Adblock then Adhide plus 0.7

Adblock plus 0.5 works when the address is type, redirected or embeded in a frame.. it blocks the site before it even loads, the same thing with div elements, and regular images.

[adum]

Umm... I'd rather use Adblock then Adhide plus 0.7

Adblock plus 0.5 works when the address is type, redirected or embeded in a frame.. it blocks the site before it even loads, the same thing with div elements, and regular images.

Sorry, but you are wrong regarding that:

* siteblocking in ABP 0.5 works just like Adblock, AFAIK the source code is the same (with some additions like whitelist and DIV blocking). If you click a blocked site you will be redirected to a warning tab/window, I have already explained to the other? guest the advantages and disadvantages of both approachs, and why I prefer to have the links removed.

* ABP 0.5 does not block div elements before loading them, sorry. It uploads them and remove them from the page, like ABP 0.7 and Stylish. Really DIV Blocking is not a correct name, it should be DIV hiding or DIV removing. ABP 0.7 has a different syntax and can block/remove/hide (call them as you like, but you must use the same term for both versions) different kind of elements, not only DIVs, and with more rules (raw CSS). For this reason I can use it to remove these links, as far as I know I cannot do it with ABP 0.5 (but note that I am not complete sure about this, I could not check).

* regarding images, ads, and similar itmes, Adblock, ABP 0.5 and ABP 0.7 block them before loading, so they are not even loaded. "Hiding" is only regarded to CSS items to be removed.