filter suggestion [n/a]

[andy]

I added "*/ad/*" to my rules and have gotten 6000+ hits in the past few months. I think it would be a good filter to include in your list.

[IceDogg]

No expert but even I can tell you that would cause a ton of false positives (blocking of content not intended). What about a job site that has /ad/ as a category? I could name many more but you get the idea.

However having said that. I have a lot of those type filters in my PERSONAL filter list. Because I know they are there and if a site has a problem I can disable my personal filterset first and see if that fixes it. Nothing wrong with you having this in your PERSONAL list. But Easylist is a public list and would get a lot of false positives.

Good suggestion its just to basic for a big filterset.

[rick752]

Ditto what Dogg said.

There are a lot of fp's waiting to happen with that one (had some already). I do have:

Code: Select all

/ad/*.js~$subdocument

.. but I have it that way for a reason.

Besides that, I don't remember really needing */ad/*. If you can find an instant of that where another string in my filter doesn't block that same thing, let me know. I really don't think that you will find much.

[Fox]

Code: Select all

/ad/*.js~$subdocument

$~subdocument
is valid filter option, are you sure your filter works like you want.

ps: and your filterlist still has
.doubleclick.$frame
And it's same as .doubleclick.
because $frame is invalid option.
http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#options

I think just .doubleclick. without any option is good filter, but it's your filterlist:)

[rick752]

Code: Select all

/ad/*.js~$subdocument

$~subdocument
is valid filter option, are you sure your filter works like you want.

ps: and your filterlist still has
.doubleclick.$frame
And it's same as .doubleclick.
because $frame is invalid option.
http://adblockplus.org/en/filters#options

I think just .doubleclick. without any option is good filter, but it's your filterlist:)

Thanks for the code check, Fox.

Now "$~"

.doubleclick. was a different block that I used the word 'frame' for instead of 'subdocument'. I don't think it is necessary anymore because I think I had that problem fixed anyway. Thanks a lot for pointing those out.

Fixed

[Fox]

.doubleclick. was a different block that I used the word 'frame' for instead of 'subdocument'. I don't think it is necessary anymore because I think I had that problem fixed anyway.

But #frame was invalid option.
Adblock did only check .doubleclick. with it, if there really was #frame in the address, the correct filter was
.doubleclick.$frame*
or
.doubleclick.*$frame*
Then it checks if url has .doubleclick. and $frame.

You can try this with lidl.
With *lidl.fi*$file
even that item is blocked that does not have that $file in the address.
with *lidl.fi*$file*
every item is blocked, except that one that does not have it in the address, correct behaviour.

Thanks a lot for pointing those out.

No problem.
Your filterlist is very good.

ps: sorry my little bit bad english.

[rick752]

But #frame was invalid option.

I thought that I had removed all of the "$frame" strings a while ago and replaced them with "$subdocument"

I thought at that time that it was a valid switch. I think I did that because that was the way it was described in the blockable items list. I'm pretty sure that it was you who actually brought that to my attention originally.

Thanx again for finding that Fox.

[Fox]

Yes, it was me.
And you fixed all other filters very quickly, but you missed that one.
I did send you another feedback next day and said: "You missed .doubleclick.$frame"

And now when i did say it again, you said:
".doubleclick. was a different block that I used the word 'frame' for instead of 'subdocument'."

Maybe my english is too bad, but i did think you tried to do something else with that string, and that's why i did write that previous post.

[rick752]

And now when i did say it again, you said:
".doubleclick. was a different block that I used the word 'frame' for instead of 'subdocument'."
Maybe my english is too bad, but i did think you tried to do something else with that string, and that's why i did write that previous post.

I remember that now, Fox. I don't know why I didn't fix that string before. I realized that it was incorrect ..... I think I just forgot about it.