EasyList "Private Forum"

[rick752]

I have decided to move our actual 'hardcore' filter development to a new private area within this forum.

There is evidence that advertisers and sites that support them are in here reading our statements about what we are blocking, who we are blocking, where we are blocking, with what we are blocking it with ... also, what is easy and what is more difficult to block (especially with the optional EasyElement filter which targets the sites own coding).

Only members that I deem "not advertiser related" will be the only ones who can access or even visually see that forum. It is here that we can talk freely without wondering who is reading (and adjusting to) our discussions.

We will still discuss normal filter topics in the open forum ... it's just that we needed somewhere more private to actually trade more "specific" filter development info.

If you would like to help in this area, you can ask me ... but "Be Forewarned"!:
Because of recent changes in code structuring by some very major sites (which seems to be a direct result of things they are reading that we were doing here publicly), I will allow people ONLY as I "feel them out".

ps: I will allow any existing "trusted" member of these forums here access even if they are not into adblocking but are just curious. Just ask.

[IceDogg]

This sounds like a good idea, but don't they just need access to the filter list when it's posted publicly and then they can change their site?? If you don't publish it, then it kind of defeats the purpose. I know that some of the discussions don't need to be public, but in the end they more then likely only look at the list itself. Less time consuming on their part.

Heck they may even have a script to auto download your list then automatically make changes to the site serving up the ads, although that's doubtful.

Just playing devils advocate here, not criticizing your idea.

[rick752]

@IceDogg:

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that we have discussed (in maybe a little too much detail here) the how's and what's of these filters (especially the element ones that are so specific).

We publicly declare (and in detail) what is hard to block ... what is easy to block .... how we block what with what string .... what pages the ads are being blocked with what string ... what ADP element-hiding can do ... what it can't do ... etc

This is way too much info and makes it WAY too easy for an ad-serving webmaster to reverse engineer. It's like reading a "How to Block Your Site" manual in reverse.

If an ad-serving site wants to take the time to figure out how to get around something, I'm certainly not going to let him read things like "id 'rt43ct' blocks the whole right ad column in the finance section main page ... and table 340x70 cleans up the rest.

Let them try to figure out where this stuff is themselves. A very large site would be looking forever to try to figure this out if all they have was the filters to look at. The people finding this info are probably not the ones who would know what it meant. Don't forget that they would also have to check the generic filters too).

Oh yeah ... and after all their looking, then they would also have to fix it.

[IceDogg]

Good point!! I completely agree we was making it to easy for them. I just was playing devils advocate a little for discussing it further.

[rick752]

[The Masked Marauder]

Can Google or any of the other search engines index this area? If so, the advertising companies may be able to access this info indirectly.

[nolookingca]

One would think so, but even with a site filter the results are very limited.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=easylist ... erling.com

[rick752]

Can Google or any of the other search engines index this area? If so, the advertising companies may be able to access this info indirectly.

I sincerely doubt it ... the area is password protected. You must be logged on to even see the topic itself under the Adblock Easylist area. That means that a bot would have to do the same.

You can't even view it as a direct link ... first thing it does is ask for your password. Even other members cannot see it

[nolookingca]

But what worries me is that even the public areas aren't indexed.

[rick752]

But what worries me is that even the public areas aren't indexed.

Worried? Why? Google doesn't like to follow dynamic links. I know that tere is a way to make it follow PCP links. We've just never done it.

Yahoo & MSN will follow them, though.

(example):
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=si ... &FORM=MSRE

[Sheepy]

Let them try to figure out where this stuff is themselves. A very large site would be looking forever to try to figure this out if all they have was the filters to look at. The people finding this info are probably not the ones who would know what it meant. Don't forget that they would also have to check the generic filters too).

Oh yeah ... and after all their looking, then they would also have to fix it.

Uh... I think if they have the resource to do a very large site, then they shouldn't have much problem trying to figure out what we're doing. And generic filters won't delay them for long IMO.

But still I agree it's better that we don't discuss the details in public...

[rick752]

Uh... I think if they have the resource to do a very large site, then they shouldn't have much problem trying to figure out what we're doing. And generic filters won't delay them for long IMO.

But still I agree it's better that we don't discuss the details in public...[/color]

Well ... maybe I overstated myself a bit. They have an incredibly large infrastructure with a lot of good people working for them. In the same breath, dealing with rewriting a infrastructure of that magnitude would also be a large problem for places of that size to deal with, too.

I think that they know this stuff exists and consider it just a "mild" inconvenience (for the moment), so there is no sense rambling publicly about it and egging them on. These places would not know to what extent that the elements are being hidden because, unlike the image ads, they are still downloaded ... they are just being hidden.

[nolookingca]

But what worries me is that even the public areas aren't indexed.

Worried? Why? Google doesn't like to follow dynamic links. I know that tere is a way to make it follow PCP links. We've just never done it.

Yahoo & MSN will follow them, though.

(example):
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=si ... &FORM=MSRE

Yes, but take this for example:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=site:jcxp ... 0&ie=utf-8
&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

It's not like they never follow them

[rick752]

@nolookingca:

I never said that they DIDN'T .... I said that they don't like to.

If I made a link from my website to a forum topic, it may show up and then later disappear from google's index. On the other hand, MSN and Yahoo WILL crawl topics.

The only problem they have is that if they try to follow a link to the private area, even the bots would be faced with a login page.

[nolookingca]

True, I was just commenting the "weirdness" of it.

[Sheepy]

First, about ads on large sites, I think we've an advantage over them in that we're passionate (or at least personally motivated) about what we're doing. I, at least, will go over adblock document and W3C specs in my quest of combating ads.

Second, about google. I've heard that google is the best search engine when it comes to dynamic links, and I can verify that it indexed many topics on my own forum, powered by SMF. (It's a good solid forum, by the way)

A while ago I read a report on an analysis of the behaviour of three big engines of a dynamic honeypot. It contains some nice trees that characterise the engines. Those who are interested can read it here:
http://drunkmenworkhere.org/219

[rick752]

First, about ads on large sites, I think we've an advantage over them in that we're passionate (or at least personally motivated) about what we're doing. I, at least, will go over adblock document and W3C specs in my quest of combating ads.

Second, about google. I've heard that google is the best search engine when it comes to dynamic links, and I can verify that it indexed many topics on my own forum, powered by SMF. (It's a good solid forum, by the way)

A while ago I read a report on an analysis of the behaviour of three big engines of a dynamic honeypot. It contains some nice trees that characterise the engines. Those who are interested can read it here:
http://drunkmenworkhere.org/219

I know that google probably has the best crawl and indexing capabilities of any search engine but seems to be a bit 'sporadic' when it comes to deep-crawling dynamic pages, though.

I am not sure what factors dictate that behaviour. I've done SEO work for a long time (dating back when Infoseek and Altavista were the big engines) and the constant changes in Google's algorithms has a tendency to befuddle me at times.

For instance, why will it only crawl pages in this forum that only have inbound links .... only to drop them 2 weeks later? Yet on other PHP forums, they will index all kind of info?

[nolookingca]

Yeah. I run a fairly small SMF-powered forum and a WordPress blog, and nothing is ever indexed by google. And I know there are links to my site.