/advertisers/* is a bad default rule :/
-
- Guest
/advertisers/* is a bad default rule :/
We have a marketing dashboard, with a section called advertisers (and corresponding path).
EasyList blocking paths with the word 'advertisers' makes no sense at all. Obviously a simple rule to avoid for advertisers while legitimate apps like our will need to make changes so our users don't have a failed experience.
Please reconsider the rule and other simplistic rules that are bound to hurt everyone except the ads you are trying to stop.
Or at least limit these simple rules to 3rd party.
Thanks.
Can't be that bad, only 5 whitelists from what I see.
-
- Guest
Logically it's bad.
Probably other apps just simple rename their paths or a number of people just hit 'Don't run on this page/domain' v. whitelisting that explicit rule.
I mean, you do see that reasoning behind my request?
I have an app, it rightly uses the word 'advertisers' in its path, your filter blocks that. The ads you are trying to block likely don't have that word in their paths or quickly learn to change it to foooooo or whatever.
Further, this is a 1st party resource that is being request.
Why not at least modify your rule to 3rd party only?
Thanks.
Probably other apps just simple rename their paths or a number of people just hit 'Don't run on this page/domain' v. whitelisting that explicit rule.
I mean, you do see that reasoning behind my request?
I have an app, it rightly uses the word 'advertisers' in its path, your filter blocks that. The ads you are trying to block likely don't have that word in their paths or quickly learn to change it to foooooo or whatever.
Further, this is a 1st party resource that is being request.
Why not at least modify your rule to 3rd party only?
Thanks.
If you have the ability to change the path/directory to avoid it, then I'd recommend to do so.
Sure if we have lots of whitelists, I could see it being reconsidered as a site specific filter instead, but its still fine currently.
Sure if we have lots of whitelists, I could see it being reconsidered as a site specific filter instead, but its still fine currently.
-
- Guest
Well, that is pretty shitty.
All of our app sections have a matching path, quite logical and clean.
Now I'll need to either rename Advertisers, to some lesser word if possible, or break our convention.
If you have number of times that rule is whitelisted, do you have number of times it was triggered? 1st party v. 3rd?
Can you at least switch it to 3rd party only?
Thanks for the consideration.
All of our app sections have a matching path, quite logical and clean.
Now I'll need to either rename Advertisers, to some lesser word if possible, or break our convention.
If you have number of times that rule is whitelisted, do you have number of times it was triggered? 1st party v. 3rd?
Can you at least switch it to 3rd party only?
Thanks for the consideration.