troyhunt.com

[killerog]

The rule:

Code: Select all

troyhunt.com##.message_of_support

blocks the sponsorship message at the top of the page. This isn't an actual ad and is also clearly conforming to the acceptable ads rules: https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria

Could you please remove this from the list?

[smed79]

and is also clearly conforming to the acceptable ads rules

EasyList does not have acceptable ads model !!

Maybe this can help you https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#application

[gorhill]

Never mind, it's not self-promotion, my bad. Apologies.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets ... 4810cc2f82

[gorhill]

I believe the wording on the front page of easylist.to is causing confusion:

The EasyList filter lists are sets of rules ... that automatically remove unwanted content from the internet, including annoying adverts ...

The use of "annoying" is interpreted by some as meaning EasyList's purpose is to only remove "annoying" ads, while the reality is that its purpose is to remove ads, period. An example of such confusion is for the site targeted in this thread. See in blog post https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem/

I'd prefer to appeal to them to report this as an incorrectly categorised ad.

So apparently he interpreted "annoying adverts" as meaning the ad on his own site should not be removed because it does not qualify as "annoying". If the wording had been clear that the purpose is to remove ads ("annoying" or not), probably would have prevented the confusion.

[LanikSJ]

I guessed someone's confused where they are: rules#about

For someone who spends all that time bitching about ads can't tell the difference between one web site and the next.

[smed79]

We see here that troyhunt.com is added the AA list https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic ... 12&t=49821

[fanboy]

One mans sponsorship is another mans advert. I think he's going by the mantra if he makes a less annoying ad then it should be allowed.

[gorhill]

For someone who spends all that time bitching about ads can't tell the difference between one web site and the next.

I don't understand your comment. Am I the "someone"?

[LanikSJ]

No that was directed to the OP.

[thl]

Hello everyone,

I dont know why the discussion went in such a negative direction. The thing is: I've used ABP before it was cool (literally), switched to uBlock and I remove everything I possibly can on any site I browse.

The thing is, on one hand we all know why adblockers are necessary. On the other hand, there is a difference between sponsorship and advertisement. Look it up if you want to, im not here to criticize or to try to educate anyone. But really, advertisement and sponsorship are two different models. If someone decides to manually put static content on his page, I dont think that this should be considered as the former and get blocked.
The fact is, T. Hunt removed adverts from his site completely. Instead he opted for a sponsorship model. It is the right way to go and if you read his blog post he makes some compelling arguments.
I personally unblocked

I hope that we can continue this discussion in a more civilized manner. We are all grown ups and name calling is just unnecessary.

[fanboy]

I dont know why the discussion went in such a negative direction.

Seems pretty civilised so far.

The thing is: I've used ABP before it was cool (literally), switched to uBlock and I remove everything I possibly can on any site I browse.

Not sure how this is related, Even the troyhunt whitelist was removed from UbO. ABP gave the troyhunt website a whitelist in the acceptable-ads list, which is fine by me.

The thing is, on one hand we all know why adblockers are necessary. On the other hand, there is a difference between sponsorship and advertisement. Look it up if you want to, im not here to criticize or to try to educate anyone. But really, advertisement and sponsorship are two different models.

I really don't see a difference. Advertising space is the same as sponsorship space. A sponsor (generally a company) wants to be seen, be it a video, image or text, in the same way as an advert provider. You can use it both terms "Sponsor" and "Advert" interchangeably.

That said, if it was a self-promo, something for his own site without a 3rd-party involvement then it might be different.

If someone decides to manually put static content on his page, I dont think that this should be considered as the former and get blocked.

Not sure how static content differs, the fact it doesn't have moving images doesn't make it less ad-like. If we used that method it would be open to abuse, and the return of the adverts.

The fact is, T. Hunt removed adverts from his site completely. Instead he opted for a sponsorship model. It is the right way to go and if you read his blog post he makes some compelling arguments.

As above "sponsorship model" is no different to an advert, just with another name. "One mans sponsorship is another mans advert."

I personally unblocked

Good on you. If you enable ABP with the Acceptable-ads enabled its whitelisted there also. The user has the option to chose to whitelist any site.

I hope that we can continue this discussion in a more civilized manner. We are all grown ups and name calling is just unnecessary.

I didn't see any abuse or swearing, seems pretty tame so far.

[fanboy]

So apparently he interpreted "annoying adverts" as meaning the ad on his own site should not be removed because it does not qualify as "annoying". If the wording had been clear that the purpose is to remove ads ("annoying" or not), probably would have prevented the confusion.

"Annoying advert" can be really subjective, It would in the eye of the beholder of the submitter and the Easylist author. The moment you start classing "Annoying ads" as an author then you can diminish the list, and it'll probably fall into chaos because of forum arguments of whats ads are annoying or not etc.

Probably why the acceptable ads policy comes into it, for those ads that follow a strict policy. Other people can decide on this (not me)

When I evaluate submissions, its more of a yes/no, is a it selfpromo "yes/no?", is it an Advert "yes/no?". In troyhunt's case, is a selfpromo? No. Is it an advert? Yes. Thus its blocked.

[gotitbro]

When I evaluate submissions, its more of a yes/no, is a it selfpromo "yes/no?", is it an Advert "yes/no?". In troyhunt's case, is a selfpromo? No. Is it an advert? Yes. Thus its blocked.

That;s a great no fuzz approach to maintaining the list

[gorhill]

"Annoying advert" can be really subjective, It would in the eye of the beholder of the submitter and the Easylist author. The moment you start classing "Annoying ads" as an author then you can diminish the list, and it'll probably fall into chaos because of forum arguments of whats ads are annoying or not etc.

Of course I completely agree with this. I am just suggesting to remove the "annoying" qualifier so that there is no confusion that the purpose of EasyList is to block all ads. Troy Hunt is quoting that passage to argue that EasyList's purpose is to block only "annoying" ads and consequently that his ad should not be blocked.

[gotitbro]

Troy Hunt is quoting that passage to argue that EasyList's purpose is to block only "annoying" ads and consequently that his ad should not be blocked.

But, he is also confusing Acceptable ads and EasyList conforming to each other.

[-Mark-]

Sponsorship is synonymous with promotion and promotion on the Internet is basically an advertisement(popups,banners,flashy gifs, all sorts of things) with a link. That's what it is and should be blocked. ABP will classify it as AA as per their AA model, otherwise it's just another ad which needs to be blocked, period. Troy Hunt can whine/moan/bitch all he wants, doesn't a change a damn thing. The cat and mouse game will never end, it's an endless vicious cycle.