<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Concise Adblock Filter Set Explained</title>
	<link>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained</link>
	<description>Purveyor of Fine Words</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:09:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-8049</link>
		<author>Wladimir Palant</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-8049</guid>
					<description>Funny how you measure the "dangerousness" of a list by the number of filters. Any reason why you would say that http://adblock.free.fr/adblock.txt is less dangerous? It has less filters but those filters are so complex that hardly anybody can tell what they block.

Easylist goes by the recommendations for Adblock Plus - use specific filters and avoid regular expressions. This allows the filter list to be processed very fast. And the whitelisting entries are mostly due to the fact that some sites started to serve regular content through known advertising sites.

Have a look at the Filterset.G whitelist (http://pierceive.com/filtersetg/whitelist-beta/) - now that's scary...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny how you measure the &#8220;dangerousness&#8221; of a list by the number of filters. Any reason why you would say that <a href="http://adblock.free.fr/adblock.txt" rel="nofollow">http://adblock.free.fr/adblock.txt</a> is less dangerous? It has less filters but those filters are so complex that hardly anybody can tell what they block.</p>
<p>Easylist goes by the recommendations for Adblock Plus - use specific filters and avoid regular expressions. This allows the filter list to be processed very fast. And the whitelisting entries are mostly due to the fact that some sites started to serve regular content through known advertising sites.</p>
<p>Have a look at the Filterset.G whitelist (http://pierceive.com/filtersetg/whitelist-beta/) - now that&#8217;s scary&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick752</title>
		<link>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-8053</link>
		<author>rick752</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:18:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-8053</guid>
					<description>"Dangerous"? That's a bit harsh don't you think?

The EasyList is fairly aggressive because users want it that way ... and "yes" there will be an occasional 'burp' in what it blocks. But considering the amount of users the EasyList has, problems have been very minimal at best and false-positives have been addressed NOT mainly through whitelisting, but rather through a rewrite of the filtering strings.

You wrote:
"Evidence that the creators know of its greedy nature is their inclusion of a 20+ item whitelist to manually compensate what was initially blocked."

The irony of your statement is that your first proposed filter string:
/(\b&#124;_)ad(x&#124;s?)(\b&#124;_)/
...is EXACTLY why about 80% of those whitelist strings exist. Most of the whitelistings are for video players served thru an "ad" string. The whitelists allow the player to function correctly on some very MAJOR sites without having to remove the broader generic filter strings like */ads/* or *//ads.*. And I don't have to whitelist the ENTIRE page. The EasyList works quite well this way. Try watching news video at FoxNews, MSN, Forbes, etc with just that one filter string that you proposed .... you will have a whitelist larger than mine with just that one string.

You wrote:
" ... resulting in occasional broken pages and/or pages that dead-end because adblock has removed the “Next” button."

I don't know what 'next' button you are talking about. Things like this could occasionally happen, but I currently have no reports of any big problem with things like that ... and if someone did have a problem, I would hope that they would bring it to my attention. These things are usually fixed as fast as I can fix them when they occur. Trying to keep pages free of ads without interrupting a user's surfing experience is no small task ... but I love doing it and devote a lot of my time to it. :-)

ps: Adblock Plus does NOT have a problem with large filter lists as long as they follow the simple expression 'shortcut' rules. So using string totals is irrelevant to ABP's operation. I increased the filter size because it does not take any noticeable performance hit.

Sincerely:
rick752 - ABP EasyList/EasyElement author.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Dangerous&#8221;? That&#8217;s a bit harsh don&#8217;t you think?</p>
<p>The EasyList is fairly aggressive because users want it that way &#8230; and &#8220;yes&#8221; there will be an occasional &#8216;burp&#8217; in what it blocks. But considering the amount of users the EasyList has, problems have been very minimal at best and false-positives have been addressed NOT mainly through whitelisting, but rather through a rewrite of the filtering strings.</p>
<p>You wrote:<br />
&#8220;Evidence that the creators know of its greedy nature is their inclusion of a 20+ item whitelist to manually compensate what was initially blocked.&#8221;</p>
<p>The irony of your statement is that your first proposed filter string:<br />
/(\b|_)ad(x|s?)(\b|_)/<br />
&#8230;is EXACTLY why about 80% of those whitelist strings exist. Most of the whitelistings are for video players served thru an &#8220;ad&#8221; string. The whitelists allow the player to function correctly on some very MAJOR sites without having to remove the broader generic filter strings like */ads/* or *//ads.*. And I don&#8217;t have to whitelist the ENTIRE page. The EasyList works quite well this way. Try watching news video at FoxNews, MSN, Forbes, etc with just that one filter string that you proposed &#8230;. you will have a whitelist larger than mine with just that one string.</p>
<p>You wrote:<br />
&#8221; &#8230; resulting in occasional broken pages and/or pages that dead-end because adblock has removed the “Next” button.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know what &#8216;next&#8217; button you are talking about. Things like this could occasionally happen, but I currently have no reports of any big problem with things like that &#8230; and if someone did have a problem, I would hope that they would bring it to my attention. These things are usually fixed as fast as I can fix them when they occur. Trying to keep pages free of ads without interrupting a user&#8217;s surfing experience is no small task &#8230; but I love doing it and devote a lot of my time to it. :-)</p>
<p>ps: Adblock Plus does NOT have a problem with large filter lists as long as they follow the simple expression &#8217;shortcut&#8217; rules. So using string totals is irrelevant to ABP&#8217;s operation. I increased the filter size because it does not take any noticeable performance hit.</p>
<p>Sincerely:<br />
rick752 - ABP EasyList/EasyElement author.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stupid Head</title>
		<link>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-20504</link>
		<author>Stupid Head</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:36:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.johnvey.com/blog/2007/01/concise-adblock-filter-set-explained#comment-20504</guid>
					<description>I'm not sure who you're writing for. Are you targetting end-users or filter subscription maintainers? If the former, then they're not spending time figuring out the best way to create filters. If the latter, then EasyList is the way it is because it's optimized for the way Adblock Plus works. You can read all about it on adblockplus.org where excellent documentation is maintained and Wladimir explains in his blog which filters work best. I think you're still used to Adblock's filter style where regular expressions are preferred and people try to cram as many rules as they can in one expression. That is bad form for Adblock Plus because those types of filters are slower and make debugging harder.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure who you&#8217;re writing for. Are you targetting end-users or filter subscription maintainers? If the former, then they&#8217;re not spending time figuring out the best way to create filters. If the latter, then EasyList is the way it is because it&#8217;s optimized for the way Adblock Plus works. You can read all about it on adblockplus.org where excellent documentation is maintained and Wladimir explains in his blog which filters work best. I think you&#8217;re still used to Adblock&#8217;s filter style where regular expressions are preferred and people try to cram as many rules as they can in one expression. That is bad form for Adblock Plus because those types of filters are slower and make debugging harder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
