_300x250_

This is where you should report issues arising from the subscription filters.
Post Reply
abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

_300x250_

Post by abp_user »

Using Adblock Plus with the easy list on Firefox, i have a website where product images are blocked.
The offending rule is _300x250_ , which is used to describe the size of the images.
The path is:

Code: Select all

/resources/uploads/bestanden/_300x250_crop_center-center/motorcilinder-2.jpg

Checked with the latest list available. (updated "just now")

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

I see that the underscores in the message itself are turned into italics.
The rule that's causing the issue is correctly visible in the title of this post.

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

Still present and blocked...

So bump!

User avatar
fanboy
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:17 pm

Post by fanboy »

We're not making any generic exception rule for this, it will be abused.

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

how do you mean generic exception rule?
You are supposed to be blocking advertisements, not random generic URL segments that can be used for anything, right?
Are you guys really just blocking generic image sizes because ads use those too?
Or am i missing something?

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

@fanboy (or any other author) can you be more precise?

Why would _300x250_ on its own only be abused, and any other random value not?
What is stopping advertisers to make it _301x251_ instead for example?

I understand that you hate ads, i dislike them too.
But is that really a reason to not un-break websites your filters broke?

webguy
New Member
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:17 pm

Post by webguy »

I've got a set of sites that are being impacted by this same issue. Images that are resized get _XXXxYYY.jpg suffix added to their filename, but are just normal site images and not ads. 300x250 was the resize profile for a lot of photos and logos. Our current solution is to not use the dimensions that you guys are filtering, but it looks like there are 34 size combinations in the list, so it's probably going to become a recurring issue for us to deal with.

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

Hello webguy,

It has been almost 2 months since i first posted this thread.
Their response to this and other threads has been pretty clear.
It's basically a "Won't fix; working as intended".

Currently you have been doing exactly what i described in my post above.
They will probably add those sizes to the list too eventually, or make it a generalized rule for all dimensions.

As i see it, you have 2 options:

  1. Tell the end users that their adblockers are breaking your site(s) and ask them to disable it. (link to this forum as evidence, if needed)
  2. You overhaul the system so that resized images don't get their size as a suffix. ( How much work is that, if possible at all? )

Please keep me updated, as i would like to see where this is going.
Also, out of curiosity, can i know what sites this happens on?
(If you don't want it public, you can opt to DM or Mail)

Good luck and have a nice day,
abp_user

User avatar
fanboy
EasyList Author
EasyList Author
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:17 pm

Post by fanboy »

We can't change it, it'll allow ads. we can't make an exception because it'll be open to abuse. The only solution is the site to change.

abp_user
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2023 2:20 pm

Post by abp_user »

Now i want to set up an advert system you cant block...
Just to spite the idea that it's okay to break websites.

Expect me to post something in the other category after a few days/weeks. ;)

Post Reply