Hi Andy, Robert,
_____/ On Tue 06 Dec 2005 19:42:27 GMT, [Andy Skelton] wrote : \_____
On 12/6/05, Roy Schestowitz <wp-lowtraffic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are actually a number of selectors that match "advanced". By stick-
ing to the word "advanced", you leave yourself with 3 letters that precede
common advertisement graphics. Changing these in AdBlock as to prevent the
collision would significantly reduce its effectiveness, i.e. weaken the
success rate.
Yes, this is true. However, I quite honestly don't give a damn about
whether you have to look at 2% of the ads out there instead of 1%.
You, the user, are purposefully breaking your own browser. Given the
billions of web sites out there, there are probably millions that
serve non-ad images from a subdirectory called "advanced." Certainly
any site using TinyMCE with the default theme (advanced) will be
affected. The source of this too-liberal selector is ultimately
responsible and should be responsive to feedback, especially if it
comes from more than one person.
I couldn't agree more with you. Please don't perceive in me a person who
stubbornly suggests that AdBlock gets accommodated. I just know that
some users
will innocently (or quite conversely -- deservedly) be affected.
Now that it is clear to you how strongly I feel about pandering to the
"I can't be bothered to look at advertisements" crowd by considering
all words beginning with "adv" off-limits in URLs, I will concede that
I do not have control over the WordPress codebase, I do not have
commit rights, and I am not the only person capable of creating
patches for the core. This is OSS and I am merely a contributor. All I
can do is what I think is the right thing, which involves contacting
the source of the problem to effect a proper resolution.
I hope nothing in this email hurts anybody's feelings.
Not at all. I guess this so-called 'bug' becomes somewhat of a political
question, so whichever solution (or just path) gets chosen, someone will be
dissatisfied with it.
_____/ On Tue 06 Dec 2005 20:39:31 GMT, [Robert Deaton] wrote : \_____
On 12/6/05, Roy Schestowitz <wp-lowtraffic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Choosing to ignore AdBlock is risky. That'd be an (admittedly poor) equiv-
alent of Firefox ignoring <bgsound> because it's not standardised. The
newsgroups are filled with users who whine about Firefox, which refuses to
play some silly tune in their Web page.
This is really a terrible analogy. Newsgroups are also filled with
people who complain that IE does not support a whole host of features
supported in multiple other browsers in the first place, but here is
not the place to argue that. The lesson here is that we should not be
adapting to something that you purposely broke. Reguardless of your
opinion, the fact remains that adblock breaks the web, refusing to
display images or other bits of code that would normally be displayed,
and we should not try to work around something you broke.
Instead, let the Adblock devs fix it.
Here is the offending code:
img[src*="/adv"]
Here is an easy way to fix it
img[src*="/advert"]
Still matches adverts, advertise, advertisements, etc. Voila, problem solved.
The problem goes a bit deeper because you must also concede "/ad",
which is the
very core of AdBlock and probably accounts for [rough guess] 70% of all ads.
Roy
|
|
