blocking an element without confirmation?

packet.head · Post by **packet.head** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:07 pm

hi there. i searched for an option to do this, but found nothing.

is there a way to to say..

1.) right-click on an image
2.) left-click on "AdBlock Image..."
3.) continue surfing without having the preferences window pop up in my face?

basically, i would like to ad-block ad-block

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:31 pm

What would be the point? You always need to adjust the filter, blocking one URL usually won't be of any use - almost all ads out there have slightly different URLs every time you reload the the page. And I haven't developed the artificial intelligence to create proper filters automatically yet

noobstyler · Post by **noobstyler** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:49 pm

Wladimir Palant wrote:And I haven't developed the artificial intelligence to create proper filters automatically yet

Then hurry up, I hope next version will have it included.

(I hope i included enough emoticons, to make my intention clear)

packet.head · Post by **packet.head** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:56 pm

hi Wladimir. my apologies, i should have been more clear:

i am on a very slow connection, so blocking most site images (banners, small layout gradient bars etc.) that i frequent really helps the pages to load faster.

what i am asking is a way to automatically (without secondary confirmation through the preferences window) block images when i right click them and select "Adblock Image..."?

i hope that made more sense.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:42 pm

No, I didn't get more from your second message than I did from the first. Maybe it's me who should be more clear.

Almost nobody is hosting banners on his own site. Everybody is a member in some advertising network and advertising networks usually don't display the same banners all too often. This means that the first time you enter the page the banner's address might be something like "http://banner.site.com/banner123.gif" and the next time it will be "http://banner.site.com/banner321.gif". Adding individual addresses as filters is pointless, you have to use a filter like "http://banner.site.com/*".

And even if you want to block all images on a site, your time is better spent adjusting the filter into something like "http://some.site.com/*.gif" instead of blocking every image individually. I really don't see the point in allowing to add full-URL filters more easily, usually that's something you (should?) never do.

stahlsau · Post by **stahlsau** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:09 pm

That's exatly the point that prevents me from using adblockplus. I HATE to be forced to make 3 or 4 clicks for every image i block.

Sure, ads are blocked ok through regex. But i often block some images on websites i often visit, for example signature-images in forums, background images and other unuseful stuff. So why can't you implement a function like "block and forget"? Not every image url changes all the time...and not every user is a regex-pro...think about it. I'm sure there are many guys who would enjoy this.

packet.head · Post by **packet.head** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:04 pm

thanks for saying what i couldn't put into words, stahlsau. in previous versions (i'm not too keen on the history of adblock/adblock plus) this was a handy feature.

and yes, not everyone will need it, but for those who do it would make a whole world of difference.

perhaps this could be implemented as an optional feature someday.

stahlsau · Post by **stahlsau** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:31 pm

yeah, that'd be great. Anyways, i don't see a difference between the blocking capabilities of the two versions (adblock + adblock-plus). Standart adblock supports regex too...only sometimes it refuses to remove some flash crap, but i can live with that.

Max · Post by **Max** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:04 pm

It would be better if there is an option for adblock confirmation...

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:48 am

Wladimir Palant wrote:And I haven't developed the artificial intelligence to create proper filters automatically yet

This was a joke. Really

But after thinking about this for a while - why shouldn't I? It doesn't have to be a great AI, a simple set of heuristics will do in most cases. So the first time you block an image it is simply added as a full-URL filter. The next time you do the same for a similar URL the existing filter is found and the two are merged. It should do for the typical cases - and the complicated scenarios can be handled by subscriptions. Maybe I should change the long-term plans...

bur · Post by **bur** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:06 am

That really is a great idea. Slightly more advanced users won't benefit from this, but it would help the "common user" who doesn't want to create a filter (though it really is easier than you seem to think stahlsau, no regexp needed at all).

That AI should be quite careful though, so that it doesn't create a too generic filter to easily thus blocking false positives and making the "common user" wonder why he sees no pictures though he didn't block any.

Peng · Post by **Peng** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:13 pm

Yeah. There are some websites that store their ads in the main images directory, so this AI would probably block all images on the website. Because of that, I'm not sure it's worth implementing.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:17 pm

@Peng: It probably would. Then you would unblock one of the regular images and the "AI" would recognize that it has to block each banner on this site separately.

Peng · Post by **Peng** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:59 pm

Wladimir Palant wrote:@Peng: It probably would. Then you would unblock one of the regular images and the "AI" would recognize that it has to block each banner on this site separately.

Ehh. The AI would have to remember this. Maybe it's a little mean, but I say let users suffer with having to block each ad separately if they don't read how to make more broad filters. I think it could only cause more problems. Users will cause false positives that way less frequently than the AI would.