If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Found it. To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that site. In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL. I think all browsers are the same.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Commander Kinsey wrote:
* Found it.* To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that site.* In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL.* I think all browsers are the same. Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't get the content. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:45:01 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote: Found it. To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that site. In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL. I think all browsers are the same. Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't get the content. Then they can shove their content up their arse. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:45:01 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: Â* Found it.Â* To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that site. Kinsey and I discussed this last year. In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL.Â* I think all browsers are the same. Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't get the content. Kinsey and I also discussed this last year. Then they can shove their content up their arse. Last year, Kinsey did not want to forgo our advertising-funded content. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:31:15 +0100, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 18:45:01 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: Found it. To prevent adblocker detection, disable javascript for that site. Kinsey and I discussed this last year. I am Kinsey you moron. In Opera you click the padlock to the left of the URL. I think all browsers are the same. Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't get the content. Kinsey and I also discussed this last year. Well it didn't work when you mentioned it. Or more likely you didn't inform me it was possible to do it per site. Then they can shove their content up their arse. Last year, Kinsey did not want to forgo our advertising-funded content. Bull****. I want no adverts whatsoever. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote
| Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript | injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't | get the content. | Yes, it's an arms war. I think blocking ads is much more easily done with a HOSTS file. But I also rarely enable javascript. Very rarely. Yet what you say is true. I find some sites are blank without script or have big blocks over the content. At those sites I turn off CSS. Other sites try to block links from working by doing things like putting ptransparent objects on top of them. With those I also disable CSS. Still other sites actually put the webpage itself inside JSON blocks. Those simply won't work at all without script. Some sites mess up image tags by trying to sniff screen size to pick the image to show, but then leaving no default image for people not using script. Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
In article , Mayayana
wrote: Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. very few, definitely not enough to justify catering to them. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On 06/08/2020 21.03, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana wrote: Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. very few, definitely not enough to justify catering to them. What about blind people? Graphic content is of no use to them. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. very few, definitely not enough to justify catering to them. What about blind people? Graphic content is of no use to them. they don't disable javascript. they also use screen readers, which can read not only the article, but also the alt tags that describe the images. in some cases, the actual content of the images can be determined and described, even without alt tags. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
"Carlos E.R." wrote
| What about blind people? Graphic content is of no use to them. I used to have a blind friend who I helped. It's difficult for them. Probably more so with the extreme use of script. But I don't know for sure. Typically they would disable images altogether in order to save on load time. It might be that they'd be better off with no style. It's tricky. Screen readers depend on being able to parse the document object model. And the elements have to work properly. What happens when a DIV is covering a link in order to thwart people wiyth script disabled? Can a screendreader see the link? Maybe. Maybe not. One of the worst sites for my friend was a site especially for the blind where he could borrow books (or maybe it was music) for free. Each item could be downloaded invarious formats. But to select the format one has to click the dropdown menu and then click on the preferred format. The dropdown didn't handle down arrow. So you click the dropdown, down arrow, then it closes. Impossible to use. Why didn't they just put several plain links? Incompetence. They were trying to be clever. On the other hand, most sites now expect to make some kind of money from each visitor. They plan to sell your personal data and/or show you ads. Many feel you have no right to load their website if you don't see ads! They don't realize they've just put the saite in a publicly accessible place. Those people probably couldn't care less if a blind person can read their pages, except to avoid lawsuits. They have the same attitude nospam espouses: No effort is justified if it doesn't pay money. The days of websites designed to work well are long gone. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
"Mayayana" wrote:
turn off CSS. Other sites try to block links from working by doing things like putting ptransparent objects on top of them. Using CSS to customize webpages, sometimes several top layers must be removed before getting to the object of interest. I keep count of the number of overlying objects removed before getting to the object of interest, then edit the CSS file to delete that number of prior overlying object selectors. I had not considered that foul play, I just figured it was part of the programming. Most annoying is when they use what appear to be random numbers for CSS object selectors. Strangely, seems they do that for some other reason than to thwart ad-blocking. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:48:59 +0100, Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote | Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript | injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't | get the content. | Yes, it's an arms war. I think blocking ads is much more easily done with a HOSTS file. How can that work when the ads are stored on the same server as the content? But I also rarely enable javascript. Very rarely. Almost every site I use needs it for something, I don't want to disable it all over. Yet what you say is true. I find some sites are blank without script or have big blocks over the content. At those sites I turn off CSS. Other sites try to block links from working by doing things like putting ptransparent objects on top of them. With those I also disable CSS. Still other sites actually put the webpage itself inside JSON blocks. Those simply won't work at all without script. Some sites mess up image tags by trying to sniff screen size to pick the image to show, but then leaving no default image for people not using script. Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. If I can't get through their blocks quickly, I send them an email with swearwords in it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Aug 6, 2020 at 12:34:31 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:48:59 +0100, Mayayana wrote: "Jonathan N. Little" wrote | Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript | injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't | get the content. | Yes, it's an arms war. I think blocking ads is much more easily done with a HOSTS file. How can that work when the ads are stored on the same server as the content? Not easily. Hmmm, I wonder if you can block specific paths at an IP? Not that I know of. But I also rarely enable javascript. Very rarely. Almost every site I use needs it for something, I don't want to disable it all over. I have some sites set to "Reader Mode" to bypass a bunch of junk. I can do that on a site by site basis. Yet what you say is true. I find some sites are blank without script or have big blocks over the content. At those sites I turn off CSS. Other sites try to block links from working by doing things like putting ptransparent objects on top of them. With those I also disable CSS. Still other sites actually put the webpage itself inside JSON blocks. Those simply won't work at all without script. Some sites mess up image tags by trying to sniff screen size to pick the image to show, but then leaving no default image for people not using script. Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. If I can't get through their blocks quickly, I send them an email with swearwords in it. I am sure that is very helpful. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 21:38:50 +0100, Snit wrote:
On Aug 6, 2020 at 12:34:31 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote: On Thu, 06 Aug 2020 19:48:59 +0100, Mayayana wrote: "Jonathan N. Little" wrote | Yes, but some sites have a counter for that strategy...JavaScript | injected content. You don't get the adblocker warning but you also don't | get the content. | Yes, it's an arms war. I think blocking ads is much more easily done with a HOSTS file. How can that work when the ads are stored on the same server as the content? Not easily. Hmmm, I wonder if you can block specific paths at an IP? Not that I know of. But I also rarely enable javascript. Very rarely. Almost every site I use needs it for something, I don't want to disable it all over. I have some sites set to "Reader Mode" to bypass a bunch of junk. I can do that on a site by site basis. What is "reader mode"? Yet what you say is true. I find some sites are blank without script or have big blocks over the content. At those sites I turn off CSS. Other sites try to block links from working by doing things like putting ptransparent objects on top of them. With those I also disable CSS. Still other sites actually put the webpage itself inside JSON blocks. Those simply won't work at all without script. Some sites mess up image tags by trying to sniff screen size to pick the image to show, but then leaving no default image for people not using script. Some of it is sneaky. Much of it is simply incompetence on the part of webmasters who don't realize that some people are not enabling script. If I can't get through their blocks quickly, I send them an email with swearwords in it. I am sure that is very helpful. It lets them know they lost a customer. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Snit, others,
How can that work when the ads are stored on the same server as the content? Not easily. Hmmm, I wonder if you can block specific paths at an IP? Not that I know of. I do not often encounter ads that are stored on the same server as the content, but when so I GreaseMonkey the heck outof those pages, removing content based on, among others, what its (partial) path is. Same with overlays actually. I've got a general "rule" in place which un-floats them and moves them to the very bottom of the webpage. Still accessible when needed, but out of sight and not covering anything anymore. Also works well for those "informational banners" *cough* cookie agreements *cough* stuck at the top or bottom of my screens realestate So yes, even though its probably not the way you thought of, its quite possible to "block content" even when it comes from the same domain as the content you are after. .... at least, it still works for me (XP, FF 52). YMMV depending on (the version of) your browser. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|