Because of the way Foxnews is serving their videos now (mainly through a scumbag 'doubleclick' link), I have decided NOT to whitelist the videos anymore. I WANT people to be inconvenienced trying to view them (but you can see fixes below).
I could probably figure out how to bust the scripting to make the videos work correctly, but I WILL NOT ALLOW "DOUBLECLICK" as a whitelist under any circumstances!
I think Fox has made a large error in their assessment of people who want ads blocked. The people who WANT to block ads genereally NEVER click on them. All they have done now is make a lot of work for themselves and have created a distaste for their website in many peoples' minds ... including mine. Things like this could actually cause resentment toward their news in general.
As of now, I will CONTINUE TO BLOCK their videos (mainly because of *doubleclick*) along with the associated ads until I feel the urge fix the filtering so it allows one and not the other. This is a very risky (imho, a very bad) move on the part of Fox!
I suggest USERS watch videos instead at:
http://reuters.com
http://cnn.com
... or any of the OTHER major networks.
If you are OK with seeing the ads alongside the video feed, you can add the following whitelist ... or just simply disable Adblock for them:
@@http://www.foxnews.com/video2/
I, for one, am just not going to go there anymore.
Foxnews video problem explaination and solutions.
Foxnews video problem explaination and solutions.
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
Good idea. If a user wants to watch the videos, that user can whitelist them himself. If a site inconveniences me too much, I don't go there again.
There are times when you just have to let web sites cause their own false positives if they absolutely insist on doing so, and this is one of those times. It'll only succeed in driving users away.
There are times when you just have to let web sites cause their own false positives if they absolutely insist on doing so, and this is one of those times. It'll only succeed in driving users away.
Wow, VF!VF wrote: There are times when you just have to let web sites cause their own false positives if they absolutely insist on doing so.
What a great line! That was just perfect. I want to use that (with your permission, of course)
Can I quote you? (oh, wait, I just did)
That really sums up what's going on here. Who will 'flinch' first. The site? ... or the filter? Film at 11 (unless it's on Foxnews)
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it"
Thanks, and of course you're free to quote anything I post, it doesn't matter to me.
Anyway, something this crazy is really Fox's problem, not ours. If we whitelisted this, we'd end up whitelisting more and more sites that do this sort of thing, but if we stand our ground other sites might refrain from doing things like this.
Anyway, something this crazy is really Fox's problem, not ours. If we whitelisted this, we'd end up whitelisting more and more sites that do this sort of thing, but if we stand our ground other sites might refrain from doing things like this.
