|
Testing for blocking of ads is incredibly tricky and this entire thing truly frustrating.
We hate spam. We hate crappy ads.
We *love* talking about cool stuff, and we are committed to helping IT pros succeed, and that means *all* IT pros. One day, should you go solo, you'll want to show off your work, your art, your commercial product to others and see who's interested, and many, many people will be interested. However, AdBlockers will stop you doing this, and will stop you and your users having a conversation about what you've created.
If people want to use blockers then that's their call, but we want to make those who use ad blockers realise there is actually another side to the story and the entire "ads are evil" is dogma that needs to be stopped. Lots of ads are crap, and some even malicious, but lots of ads are valuable, interesting, funny, or they may even save you a ton of money and a load of pain. Not all ads are created equal and we work hard to ensure we keep them at a high level of quality.
So: we're investing time into making the choices someone makes more substantial than simply clicking a button. However, it's software. Worse: it's web browsers. Even worse, it software written for webbrowsers by a couple of guys hell-bent on affecting online business in order to promote their own online business so the whole exercise is just painfully awful and I wish that
a) all spammers would disappear from the face of the Earth, and
b) all ads were sensible, accurate, and treated us like intelligent people, so that
c) all ad blocking software was rendered unnecessary, and so we could have javascript back in emails, and auto-downloading of images, and unicorns would frolic in the meadows...
Sigh.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
So was this a spam ad or a test for blocking ads on your part, since I don't block ads?
|
|
|
|
|
I'd classify it as a bug. It's been squashed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: we want to make those who use ad blockers realise there is actually another side to the story and the entire "ads are evil" is dogma that needs to be stopped.
You have obviously succeeded in waking us up a bit. At least when it comes to ads on CodeProject and RootAdmin. Hopefully that will show a result on your counters with the ad serving agency.
When I installed the ad blocker, it was out of frustration with the heavy and loud ads that applied all kinds of tricks to push their stuff onto my screen and (even worse) my speakers. Hey, I like to see pictures of undressed women as much as the next guy, but not when I am trying to figure out where to get the driver for a Smart Array 6i controller (sorry about that rant, but that actually did happen to me at work a few weeks ago).
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: a) all spammers would disappear from the face of the Earth, and
b) all ads were sensible, accurate, and treated us like intelligent people, so that
c) all ad blocking software was rendered unnecessary, and so we could have javascript back in emails, and auto-downloading of images, and unicorns would frolic in the meadows...
We are more likely to see peace in the Middle East, a cure for cancer, free elections in North Korea and someone trustworthy elected to public office before any of that happens (except perhaps the Unicorn bit).
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Not seen it and I have Ad-Block installed on my Firefox browser. I tend to use Internet Explorer more now. And I do try to be click on the ads from time to time.
modified 5-Mar-13 6:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
You can disable AdBlockPlus on a site by site basis, by clicking on it's icon and unchecking the "Enabled for this site" box.
|
|
|
|
|
But I am not using AdBlockPlus, I am using the hosts file I mentioned. I was using AdBlock, but it did not block as much as I would like, has to be installed for each browser and when I opened a link in a new tab (or window), it was not always enabled for the new tab.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Switch to ABP - it's a lot better.
It has a nice "easy filter" which let's you say "never show this image/div/span again" which is really handy with some sites.
Not this one or CP, obviously...
|
|
|
|
|
That does sound useful for sites that start auto-playing video and whatnot, but it looks like they still don't have ABP for IE, which I still use more than I use Chrome.
The hosts file has worked fairly well for me, but here is what I have just done:
- Grabbed the latest hosts file from the site I linked to above.
- Modified the hosts file to not block ad.doubleclick.net.
- Re-enabled AdBlock on my IE and set it to not filter CP and RA.
Now I am seeing the ads here and still have most stuff blocked on other sites even if AdBlock fails me when opening a link in a new tab/window. If I also install AdBlockPlus on Chrome, I guess it will all be just peachy.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: You can disable AdBlockPlus on a site by site basis, by clicking on it's icon and unchecking the "Enabled for this site" box.
Hi OriginalGriff,
Not in Chrome Version 27.0.1430.0 dev-m you can't. I'm using AdBlock Plus 1.3.4, from adblockplus.org: a standard-click drops down a little box with nothing in it that does not respond to mouse or keyboard input. Context-clicking on the icon brings up a tabbed interface for setting preferences, in which you can manually enter domains (not url's) to be "whitelisted."
Perhaps this interface/behavior difference from what you describe is due to this being a Chrome beta ? Who knows.
yours, Bill
|
|
|
|
|
1.3.4 is the version I am using with Chrome 25.0.1364.152 m so it may be a beta problem - worth reporting?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi OriginalGriff,
I have had one response to my post on the ADBlock Plus' user-forum about this issue: [^].
And, the person responding is also, evidently, the author of the kind of default block-site list for ADBP, named "EasyList." So that's giving me an opportunity to ask him about the entry in the "EasyList" of CodeProject.com:
||codeproject.com^*/adm/
I was also going to send a report to Google, but I notice the Chrome dev version is about to update, again, and I wanted to query ADBP first, partly because of discovering the listing of CP in "EasyList."
yours, Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Bets on if you get a sensible response? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I just say that whoever decided the micro USB 3.0[^] form factor was a good idea should be slapped.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Please do.
Add a kick in the man-vegetables from me as well, if you'd be so kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Can I just say that whoever decided the micro
USB 3.0[^] form factor was a good idea should be slapped.
What's your issue with it? Never had a problem myself.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with it aside from the fact it's bigger and uglier than 2.0.
But hey, for the speed, it's worth it. 
|
|
|
|
|
How can it be "Micro" if it is bigger than a usb 2.0 ?
Also I thought a "Standard" 3.0 was supposed to fit into a 2.0
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how it can still be "micro" either.
As far as "standard" 3.0 being backwards compatible with 2.0, yes it does fit. I can plug my 3.0 device into a 2.0 slot and use 2.0 speed, but I can also plug my 2.0 device into my 3.0 slot and use 2.0 speed. It works both ways. 
|
|
|
|
|
great, I have not had a chance to try a 3.0 Item yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Trust me, it's a lot of fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was kicked off CP but I can still access CodeProject.tv.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
