Currently Adblock Plus 0.5 comes with a default set of filters. If you experience false positives or can think of some important improvement post here.
You can also vote for whether you think there should be any default filters at all. Current main arguments are that it's a bad idea because people may have false positives and just assume the extension is at fault without realising it's simply a filter that can be altered. Or it's a good idea because people expect it to work out of the box and think it's useless when it doesn't.
Update
Now that Adblock Plus 0.6 has shipped there are no longer any default filters bundled. If you still want to use the old defaults then add the following URL as a subscription or simply download the file and import. http://adblockplus.webhop.org/filters.txt
This has been an uncertainty in my books since the start. I have difficulty placing myself in the "novice" user mindset - I can't remember not using Adblock.
I do think that the default filters need some change, but I don't know what direction that should take. Perhaps an alert on PropertiesOpen when filter-list is empty: "Filter List empty - Do you want to use the default filter set?"
I definately think there should be a default filter list.
Not everyone is an expert user that can edit and create there own lists.
In my opinion the default filter list should block as many legitimate ads as possible, but if some filters have to be left out in order to prevent annoying false positives, then they should be left out.
One that is particularly annoying to me is the banners of pages. I would rather have the banner with a few ads then have the banner disappear completely, like for example with regards to the bbc news site.
If you're going to have default filters, you have to ensure that they're not going to cause false positives for most people. The banners rule should be removed, since it definitely will. The ratio may be low due to the large number of ads that it blocks, but it's akin to blocking "ads" without \W. The size filter will probably have the same problem.
I think as long as it's a short list, fine. I kept a couple INCLUDING the "soon to be removed" (??)
/banner(s|\d|id=\d*)?[\W_]/
I love this filter! I did remove the "size" one as I've found they just never work, at least for me - and DID get me false positives. I checked on some sites and the above "banners" was used often! If G thinks it will get false positives however -- he's the expert. I'll keep it for now.
I replaced others with my filterset. It doesn't take a second for someone to delete/append them - but right off the bat you're seeing less ads if you install AdBlock Plus and want to "test drive it."
The point is, it (a default list) would be especially good for new users who want something basic - that short list does a lot!!
The two sets you've quoted are virtually identical, what was removed was:
.googlesyndication.
us.yimg.com/a/
yimg.com/*.js
And now:
/\D(728|588|468|234|160|120)x(600?|90)\D/
/banner(s|\d|id=\d*)?[\W_]/
In regards to the lists you quoted I can't remember why the first one was removed I think it was because of a few requests I had, but the last two a specific to Yahoo and don't work that well any longer.
Yes, I'd include a set of default filters. FWIW, I used Privoxy (previously known as Junkbuster) for many years, and it came wih a very extensive set of filters. I still think it is excellent but I recently switched to Ad-Block because it is easier to configure.
Advertising is the key word and is something you would normally want to block with a default filterset. You can fix it by just unticking "Check Parent Links" or adding a "@@coma.comdirect.de" white filter, or in the "/[\W_]ad(banner..." filter change "...vert(ising|isement)?..." to "...vert(isement)?...".
Sorry, I didn't discribe the problem exactly enough.
Go to www.comdirect.de -> enter "Telekom" in the "Kurssuche" and press Enter. Now will not get the graphs.
The domain is in this case isht.comdirect.de.
