EasyList Forum

Just to be clear, spreadfirefox isn't getting a full whitelist, only the banners are whitelisted there.
[code]@@|http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/$image,domain=spreadfirefox.com[/code]
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Because that's a solution targeted at sidestepping a specific set of rules, and requires more work for us in the long run. I'd rather do a blanket fix by whitelisting spreadfirefox.com, so that I know at least our site can't be broken by ADP.

I realize detecting an add-on from a website is a hack, so I won't be going that route.

I'll be testing and following up with other lists, but EasyList is a great start.

Thanks

So what about just renaming the banners as mentioned above. Is it really that hard for you? The old ones just stay as they are, but you only offer the renamed ones on your site from now on. That would save you from going down the dirty road of detecting ABP and it would not confuse users that see the banner on your site (when I whitelist it) but not on their own. And just for you to remember, there are other lists beside EasyList that block your banners, so even if [u]I[/u] whitelist them, it isn't a reliable solution. :)

Hey,

Yes, you make very good points :)

I guess the best option is post a note on spreadfirefox.com then? Saying "Hey! If you're using ADP it may be blocking out some banners (etc)"

Can we still whitelist spreadfirefox.com please? Just in case people don't see the above warning.

Is there a way to tell if a user is using ADP from within a website using Javascript?

Thank you very much for helping me understand the situation here. I really appreciate it.

-Alex

[quote="abuchanan"]I'm asking that spreadfirefox.com be whitelisted because we don't have advertisements on the site, and all images [i]on spreadfirefox.com[/i] are used for functionality. To be clear, I'm speaking only of the images on spreadfirefox.com, and not images on 3rd-party sites which source from sfx-image.m.o[/quote]
I see what you mean and I can easily whitelist the banners on your site, but I wonder what that is good for? ATM, somebody using EasyList who wants to embed http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/firefox3/468x60.png doesn't even know it exists because ABP blocks it. When I whitelist the banners [u]only on spreadfirefox.com[/u], he/she will be able to see it there, try to embed it and then wonder why it doesn't show up. Is this really better?

[quote="abuchanan"]Secondly, I'm not saying EasyList blocks all dimensions, but the fact that it blocks [i]solely[/i] by ANY dimensions is too vague.
Any image could have dimensions matching these rules.[/quote]
Well, if you check 100 random images with those dimensions, I would say 95 are ads, 4 are not really useful either (first-party promotion etc.) and maybe 1 is actually a link to some site content. That's not ideal, but no filter is perfect, some that cleary say 'ads' cause much more problems.

[quote="abuchanan"]In terms of actually blocking ads, how effective are these dimension filters? If I actually wanted to get around ADP, all I have to do is change my file name?[/quote]
They do a pretty good job in blocking affiliate banners (sorry, but those are in the scope of EasyList) served first-party or by the organisation itself. Working around those is as easy as with every other filter when it comes to first-party hosted ads. You always only have to change path and/or file name.

Yes, I agree, they are technically ads for Firefox. However, the point I am arguing here is that it is breaking this section of our site, spreadfirefox.com: http://www.spreadfirefox.com/affiliates/homepage#getbuttons

This part of the site is for [i]choosing[/i] the banners, so ADP is breaking the site functionality on this page. Please visit the URL above and you will understand what I mean. To clarify, I am speaking [b]only[/b] of spreadfirefox.com, and not of the sites on which these banners are eventually embedded.

I'm asking that spreadfirefox.com be whitelisted because we don't have advertisements on the site, and all images [i]on spreadfirefox.com[/i] are used for functionality. To be clear, I'm speaking only of the images on spreadfirefox.com, and not images on 3rd-party sites which source from sfx-image.m.o

Secondly, I'm not saying EasyList blocks all dimensions, but the fact that it blocks [i]solely[/i] by ANY dimensions is too vague. Any image could have dimensions matching these rules. This could break websites and be very difficult to debug (if/when it's actually noticed), as it was on spreadfirefox.com. And then, even more of a pain for web devs. to go through their site, move files, and rename image paths.

In terms of actually blocking ads, how effective are these dimension filters? If I actually wanted to get around ADP, all I have to do is change my file name?

Maybe we could combine dimensions with other factors that identify images as ads?

Thank you for helping understand and resolve this tricky situation.

Cheers,
Alex

[quote="abuchanan"]What's the best way to resolve this? Can we prevent spreadfirefox.com from being filtered? We have no ads on the site, all images on the site are used for functionality.[/quote]
Well, as fanboy says, those banners/buttons ARE ads for Firefox after all. When they are embed into another website, they are NOT site functionality but third-party promotion. I'm not going to whitelist them as some people might want to block those (and would wonder why it doesn't work).

[quote="abuchanan"]We have new buttons that need to be launched soon, so please help![/quote]
Easiest would be to just not use the dimensions in the name of the buttons, is that possible or are they needed for something? Or at least only use something like /468firefox.png and /160firefox.png etc.

[quote="abuchanan"]
I think rules of this format are too vague (dimensions e.g. *555x555*) I agree they are convenient for blocking ads, but any image could have dimensions in the name, ad or not.[/quote]
EasyList just blocks 6 common [u]ad[/u]-dimensions, not blindy any kind of dimensions:
[code]120x600
160x600
300x250
336x280
468x60
728x90[/code]

As much as we love firefox, those Affiliate websites are still advertising.. advertising firefox.

[code]@@|http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/[/code]

Also, I meant to ask, what is a good way to test this? Is there a test framework that can test all AdBlock Plus lists?

Hi,

EasyList is blocking buttons in our Affiliates program at http://www.spreadfirefox.com/affiliates/homepage#getbuttons

An example rule is *_160x600* although I think there are others.

What's the best way to resolve this? Can we prevent spreadfirefox.com from being filtered? We have no ads on the site, all images on the site are used for functionality.

We have new buttons that need to be launched soon, so please help!

I have another, less severe, qualm. I think rules of this format are too vague (dimensions e.g. *555x555*) I agree they are convenient for blocking ads, but any image could have dimensions in the name, ad or not. The risk of breaking websites is too high, imho.

Thanks!
Alex