12 ms·

Opera browser built-in ad blocking, now in beta

108 points by riqbal 11y ago

Fiahil 11y ago
Wonderful! Is it possible, like ubo, to block specific elements on the page that are not considered 'ads' by default? (like those annoying modals asking you to subscribe)
- batat 11y ago
  Nope, it's just press-this-button-to-speed-up-your-internets.
- blinky88 11y ago
  In the Opera blog, some dev said that it's coming in a couple of weeks
Cyph0n 11y ago
Looks like a good feature. Anyone here using Opera regularly? How is it on OS X? I use Chrome mainly, but I'm currently in the process of moving to Safari on El Capitan.
- jacek 11y ago
  I switched from Firefox to Opera on Linux. Opera is faster (especially cold start), has great support for high resolution screens, support for touch input, access to Chrome extensions and built in flash. The best browser for Linux IMHO.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    You can get all of that as well by just using Chrome. Opera 15+ is just a fork with a bunch of custom changes.
    - jacek 11y ago
      I know. I just don't like Chrome's UI and it's heavy integration with Google. I am trying to rely less on Google. I have switched to a different email provider, DDG is my default search engine and I use Owncloud for contacts, calendar and files.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        Good reasons. Just be sure to keep an eye on things due to the upcoming purchase by Qihoo.
    - terminalglow 11y ago
      Or, give Vivaldi browser a go. It's put together by the guy that founded Opera. And they're not owned by the Chinese.
godzillabrennus 11y ago
Too bad they didn't do this years ago and adopt the Adblock plus revenue model. They might still be a standalone company.
- eli 11y ago
  You think many publishers would have paid to be whitelisted in Opera even at the height of its popularity? Not so sure about that. I think it's kind of a sleazy business model anyway.
mrweasel 11y ago
Microsoft is also adding adblocking to Edge, which makes you wonder if the sites that rely on ads for finance their operation is designing a "Plan B". Granted it's not the two biggest browsers, and Google isn't likely to add ad blocking to Chrome, but still the it must make some sites rethink their business plan.
- manuelflara 11y ago
  Actually, I read Google won't be too late to the party adding ad blocking to Chrome. Of course, with their ad networks whitelisted by default. To be honest, I think if they haven't done this already is because it would be such a monopolistic move. Most AdBlockers come with Google adsense whitelisted, but imagine if Google did that themselves. But considering not only how widespread the use of ad blockers is, but also how other browsers are soon going to ship with an ad blocker built in, now they'll be able to do it without anyone complaining about it.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    What Google would have to do is participate in some sort of standards body for ads, like the IAB except with the sole purpose of determining "compliant" ad companies vs ad companies who will be blocked by default. If they can get enough buy in, then they'll implement adblocking in Chrome while saying "we're not using monopoly power, we are simply implementing the standard X that Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera and Firefox have all implemented before us".
mapleoin 11y ago
The exception list now contains only four websites that offer a very good experience to their users with ads on. They say that now, but what about a year from now? Look at the scandal around the original Adblock extension. Everyone wants to maintain their own whitelist. I suppose this is the new monetization strategy? Pay us to whitelist you?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  I remember when they wrote a great URL blocker which was blazingly fast and very easy for the user to edit and came with zero opinions. It was built in the browser's engine core, had some UI elements to help add or remove things quickly, but at the end of the day was just a text file in your profile. I remember it because it's what Opera 12 has, which is still my main browser to this day. Edit: !!! As https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11397230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11397230 points out, this new ad blocker is even worse than anyone could think: It has literally no user interaction, except from adding websites to a whitelist. Other than the whitelist it has exactly two settings: On / Off If it's blocking something on a website where you don't want it to block, but also want to block ads? Tough luck. If you're on a website where it's failing to block something you want blocked? Tough luck. If you want to block something that's not an ad? Tough luck. It's depressing how far Opera ASA has fallen.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    What about security? Checking Wikipedia says there's only been two updates since 2013.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      CVE has no known issues for Opera 12.18 and they recently upgraded the SSL ciphers to conform to modern standards.
- jo909 11y ago
  What URLs/domains are on this exception list exactly? Couldn't find it anywhere. Edit: had to install Opera to find out, this is the list: [*.]baidu.com [*.]facebook.com [*.]google.com [*.]yandex.com
mtgx 11y ago
They need to clean up their menu a little. Why is there the News, History and Speed Dial option in there if I already have them on each new tab? Otherwise I love this new feature and that they adopted CT, but I think I speak for many people when I say that I'm a little worried about the trustworthiness of their new Chinese owners. A quick Google search about them doesn't inspire confidence: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2919554/tencent-qihoo-antimalware-firms-are-accused-of-cheating-stripped-of-rankings-in-antivirus-tests.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2919554/tencent-qihoo-antimal... EDIT: Did a few tests on several websites. It seems for those that those that are lighter on ads like WashingtonPost, it can make the loading time 15-30% faster, while for the heavier ones like iMore, TheVerge, BusinessInsider, it's 50-75% (depending on the ads they show at the time, I assume). The heavier ones would even take over 30 seconds to load without ad-blocking. I'd say for most sites you should see a ~50% faster loading with this enabled. I hope they include tracking-protection option as well in the future, as Firefox did. Then those features need to come to mobile, too. I don't think Firefox has implemented TP on mobile either yet.
SCdF 11y ago
I'm really beginning to wonder where the ad-blocking wars are going to leave us. If I ran some kind of online content, and it was clear the majority of my money was made in advertising, and that the majority of my money was being eroded by ad blockers, I feel like the natural next step is to fill your content with ads that are simply not blockable. I've started seeing this with YouTube videos, where people quickly (or not so quickly) plug audible at the start of their videos. I have no doubt that "native" advertising is becoming both more frequent and more insidious (because obvious native advertising doesn't work as well as non-obvious). I have to be honest: I'm not really a fan of this future. I think the right future is either a) paid content (which very few people will go for) or b) ad-supported content, but those ads aren't evil animated audible malware vector infected boxes of non-relevance. This leaves a chance that the content will actually be content, and not some headphone review that you're entirely unsure who has paid for the existence of. Perhaps instead of having massive blocklists with the occasional white-listed website, there should be some kind of automated sin-binning, where websites (and ad agencies) that have proven to behave themselves (non-animated, relevant, safe advertisements) are allowed through while dodgy scum gets blocked for N months or until they have a proven amount of time where they have shown themselves to be safe. This doesn't solve the whole "I don't want people tracking me" thing. I'm not really sure how to solve that. I don't see how you can. I see the future for that being more and more walled gardens so you can be tracked server side, which is also entirely undesirable.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > plug audible at the start of their videos As processing capacity becomes ever more available, even that can be combatted. I recently converted a bunch of pod casts into an audiobook for personal use by stripping the variably-sized intro section with some perl that uses sox and pdl to search for a known sample, and then cuts off everything before and including that sample with ffmpeg. It took maybe 3 minutes per intro section. It might conceivably be possible to do this kind of thing in realtime in the future.
  - thomasahle 11y ago
    That reminds me of MythTv's automatical removal of advertisements in recorded TV. One of the more advanced techniques they use, iirc, is checking for the disappearance of the channel logo, which tends to not be part of ads.
amelius 11y ago
A good ad-blocker should imho always keep a "shadow" DOM, so that 1. the ad-blocker does not interfere with the normal operation of the website (or webapp), and 2. the website can never detect that an ad-blocker is running. I'm not sure whether Opera does this.
- angry-hacker 11y ago
  The website can always detect an adblock. Just set a variable inside the ads.js and if it's not present, the ads are blocked. (or the file didn't load).
  - amelius 11y ago
    No, the idea is that the ads.js runs on the real DOM. The shadow DOM is a copy of that DOM minus the ads. This is the DOM shown to the user.
    - angry-hacker 11y ago
      Hmm, sounds interesting, but wouldn't it need a lot of more resources for computing all that stuff? You also need to actually download and do the work with all those ads.js (that loads another 10 trackers).
    - tokenizerrr 11y ago
      Then you would still get tracked. Half the point of adblockers is prevent the ad networks from tracking you.
      - amelius 11y ago
        To prevent this, the browser could use a fresh cookie every time you visit the site, except for sites you whitelist.
    - untog 11y ago
      That removes one of the huge benefits of ad blocking - saving bandwidth.
kbart 11y ago
How stable is Opera nowadays? I'm lazily searching for a replacement for Firefox, which even fully updated, keeps crashing on all my platforms (Android, Linux, Windows) at annoying rates.
- angry-hacker 11y ago
  I'm using now Vivaldi, but I think it's safe to say the current Opera is the most stable Chromium fork out there.
- firewalkwithme 11y ago
  Really? absolutely reckless user here on all platforms, the only crashes I have on desktop are unexpected cumputer shutdowns, on mobile it sometimes crashes right after launch, looks like the UI
- mintplant 11y ago
  Which release channel are you on, and do you have e10s enabled?
- balakk 11y ago
  Latest Opera is excellent. I keep trying all other browsers periodically, since Opera Software - the company is in a bad shape. But I always keep coming back to Opera. Despite their company doing badly technically they are still doing a great job. The UI is as fluid as ever, and the rendering is rock-solid. I wish they survive and continue building this browser.
joosters 11y ago
What is their policy with analytics and tracking, beacons, etc? These are some of the most problematic and worrying add-ons to web pages for me, and yet very little gets talked about them. In theory, a well-designed browser (and well-written web pages) can still make all the 3rd party analytics requests without slowing down web site load time (e.g. they can be deferred until the page is loaded), and yet they are the things that I want to block most of all.
esaym 11y ago
Hmm, I haven't used Opera since about 2004. How is it on Linux platforms? I am getting tired of Firefox eating all my ram, and I've never been crazy about Chrome. Edit: Seems like it is just a different wrapper around the Chrome internals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_%28web_engine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_%28web_engine%29 Does it do anything differently (or better) than Chrome or FF?
- evook 11y ago
  wait a bit for vivaldi rc1
- shwetank 11y ago
  Maybe take a look here https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/3xb7n6/how_exactly_is_opera_different_from_chrome/cy4b15i https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/3xb7n6/how_ex...
known 11y ago
https://code.google.com/archive/p/qtweb/ https://code.google.com/archive/p/qtweb/ has built in http://qtweb.net/pages/ibr9700.html http://qtweb.net/pages/ibr9700.html
digi_owl 11y ago
Frankly the advertisers, and the sites that depends on them, lost the day they started doing anything but static images and text. And after a few hot clickfraud cases, we have massive scripts being downloaded for each ad to track validity of "impressions".
gorhill 11y ago
One thing I do when I benchmark is to provide all details so that other people can try to reproduce -- anybody can investigate the figures I report. There is not enough details for me to reproduce here: no sample of which web pages were used in the benchmark, no work on settings used on various blockers. Why is it so difficult to obtain such key information? I really doubt uBlock Origin's ("uBO") default settings were used given the reported timings (because 6s to load a web page). Also that uBO is reportedly only 0.2 sec faster than ABP hardly make sense to me, especially on any Chromium-based browsers. In any case, for those who want to make comparisons for themselves between blockers, here are online tools: To measure average page load speed: http://www.raymondhill.net/ublock/pageloadspeed.html http://www.raymondhill.net/ublock/pageloadspeed.html For examples, the page-load-speed tool reports ("Average (valid)" values): http://www.rollingstone.com/ http://www.rollingstone.com/: - Opera 37 + native blocker enabled: 1482.75 ms - Chrome 51 + uBlock Origin + default settings: 1729.20 ms - Chrome 51 + ABP + EasyList/EasyPrivacy minus "acceptable ads": 2467.17 ms http://techcrunch.com/ http://techcrunch.com/: - Opera 37 + native blocker enabled: 1959.10 ms (noticed ad placeholder left behind) - Chrome 51 + uBlock Origin + default settings: 1316.90 ms - Chrome 51 + ABP + EasyList/EasyPrivacy minus "acceptable ads": 2063.76 ms And another tool, to find out what is not blocked (also a rather important aspect of any blocker): http://raymondhill.net/httpsb/har-parser.html http://raymondhill.net/httpsb/har-parser.html For example, comparing what was not blocked on TechCrunch with Opera 37 native blocker and uBO + default settings: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/585534/14185866/b2309870-f749-11e5-8c37-2008e3f2ec10.png https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/585534/14185866/b...
jlarocco 11y ago
As a former long time Opera user, I'm a little sad to say I don't trust Opera to block ads for me. uBlock Origin does the job just fine, and my gut feeling is Opera will have a whitelist or not block everything. Ever since they switched to being a Chromium skin, I just don't trust them. I'm also curious how this compares against uBlock Origin. I know uBlock uses a lot less memory and seems a lot faster than ABP for me, and it's curiously missing from their comparison.
lol2016 11y ago
Have all major trackers enabled on "start-page" per default, talks about ad-blocking with a mouse click - facepalm

108 points by riqbal 11y ago

Wonderful! Is it possible, like ubo, to block specific elements on the page that are not considered 'ads' by default? (like those annoying modals asking you to subscribe)

batat 11y ago
Nope, it's just press-this-button-to-speed-up-your-internets.
blinky88 11y ago
In the Opera blog, some dev said that it's coming in a couple of weeks

Cyph0n 11y ago

Looks like a good feature. Anyone here using Opera regularly? How is it on OS X? I use Chrome mainly, but I'm currently in the process of moving to Safari on El Capitan.

jacek 11y ago
I switched from Firefox to Opera on Linux. Opera is faster (especially cold start), has great support for high resolution screens, support for touch input, access to Chrome extensions and built in flash. The best browser for Linux IMHO.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  You can get all of that as well by just using Chrome. Opera 15+ is just a fork with a bunch of custom changes.
  - jacek 11y ago
    I know. I just don't like Chrome's UI and it's heavy integration with Google. I am trying to rely less on Google. I have switched to a different email provider, DDG is my default search engine and I use Owncloud for contacts, calendar and files.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      Good reasons. Just be sure to keep an eye on things due to the upcoming purchase by Qihoo.
  - terminalglow 11y ago
    Or, give Vivaldi browser a go. It's put together by the guy that founded Opera. And they're not owned by the Chinese.

godzillabrennus 11y ago

Too bad they didn't do this years ago and adopt the Adblock plus revenue model. They might still be a standalone company.

eli 11y ago
You think many publishers would have paid to be whitelisted in Opera even at the height of its popularity? Not so sure about that. I think it's kind of a sleazy business model anyway.

mrweasel 11y ago

Microsoft is also adding adblocking to Edge, which makes you wonder if the sites that rely on ads for finance their operation is designing a "Plan B". Granted it's not the two biggest browsers, and Google isn't likely to add ad blocking to Chrome, but still the it must make some sites rethink their business plan.

manuelflara 11y ago
Actually, I read Google won't be too late to the party adding ad blocking to Chrome. Of course, with their ad networks whitelisted by default. To be honest, I think if they haven't done this already is because it would be such a monopolistic move. Most AdBlockers come with Google adsense whitelisted, but imagine if Google did that themselves. But considering not only how widespread the use of ad blockers is, but also how other browsers are soon going to ship with an ad blocker built in, now they'll be able to do it without anyone complaining about it.
- true_religion 11y ago
  What Google would have to do is participate in some sort of standards body for ads, like the IAB except with the sole purpose of determining "compliant" ad companies vs ad companies who will be blocked by default. If they can get enough buy in, then they'll implement adblocking in Chrome while saying "we're not using monopoly power, we are simply implementing the standard X that Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera and Firefox have all implemented before us".

mapleoin 11y ago

The exception list now contains only four websites that offer a very good experience to their users with ads on. They say that now, but what about a year from now? Look at the scandal around the original Adblock extension. Everyone wants to maintain their own whitelist. I suppose this is the new monetization strategy? Pay us to whitelist you?

Mithaldu 11y ago
I remember when they wrote a great URL blocker which was blazingly fast and very easy for the user to edit and came with zero opinions. It was built in the browser's engine core, had some UI elements to help add or remove things quickly, but at the end of the day was just a text file in your profile. I remember it because it's what Opera 12 has, which is still my main browser to this day. Edit: !!! As https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11397230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11397230 points out, this new ad blocker is even worse than anyone could think: It has literally no user interaction, except from adding websites to a whitelist. Other than the whitelist it has exactly two settings: On / Off If it's blocking something on a website where you don't want it to block, but also want to block ads? Tough luck. If you're on a website where it's failing to block something you want blocked? Tough luck. If you want to block something that's not an ad? Tough luck. It's depressing how far Opera ASA has fallen.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  What about security? Checking Wikipedia says there's only been two updates since 2013.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    CVE has no known issues for Opera 12.18 and they recently upgraded the SSL ciphers to conform to modern standards.
jo909 11y ago
What URLs/domains are on this exception list exactly? Couldn't find it anywhere. Edit: had to install Opera to find out, this is the list: [*.]baidu.com [*.]facebook.com [*.]google.com [*.]yandex.com

mtgx 11y ago

They need to clean up their menu a little. Why is there the News, History and Speed Dial option in there if I already have them on each new tab? Otherwise I love this new feature and that they adopted CT, but I think I speak for many people when I say that I'm a little worried about the trustworthiness of their new Chinese owners. A quick Google search about them doesn't inspire confidence: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2919554/tencent-qihoo-antimalware-firms-are-accused-of-cheating-stripped-of-rankings-in-antivirus-tests.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2919554/tencent-qihoo-antimal... EDIT: Did a few tests on several websites. It seems for those that those that are lighter on ads like WashingtonPost, it can make the loading time 15-30% faster, while for the heavier ones like iMore, TheVerge, BusinessInsider, it's 50-75% (depending on the ads they show at the time, I assume). The heavier ones would even take over 30 seconds to load without ad-blocking. I'd say for most sites you should see a ~50% faster loading with this enabled. I hope they include tracking-protection option as well in the future, as Firefox did. Then those features need to come to mobile, too. I don't think Firefox has implemented TP on mobile either yet.

SCdF 11y ago

I'm really beginning to wonder where the ad-blocking wars are going to leave us. If I ran some kind of online content, and it was clear the majority of my money was made in advertising, and that the majority of my money was being eroded by ad blockers, I feel like the natural next step is to fill your content with ads that are simply not blockable. I've started seeing this with YouTube videos, where people quickly (or not so quickly) plug audible at the start of their videos. I have no doubt that "native" advertising is becoming both more frequent and more insidious (because obvious native advertising doesn't work as well as non-obvious). I have to be honest: I'm not really a fan of this future. I think the right future is either a) paid content (which very few people will go for) or b) ad-supported content, but those ads aren't evil animated audible malware vector infected boxes of non-relevance. This leaves a chance that the content will actually be content, and not some headphone review that you're entirely unsure who has paid for the existence of. Perhaps instead of having massive blocklists with the occasional white-listed website, there should be some kind of automated sin-binning, where websites (and ad agencies) that have proven to behave themselves (non-animated, relevant, safe advertisements) are allowed through while dodgy scum gets blocked for N months or until they have a proven amount of time where they have shown themselves to be safe. This doesn't solve the whole "I don't want people tracking me" thing. I'm not really sure how to solve that. I don't see how you can. I see the future for that being more and more walled gardens so you can be tracked server side, which is also entirely undesirable.

Mithaldu 11y ago
> plug audible at the start of their videos As processing capacity becomes ever more available, even that can be combatted. I recently converted a bunch of pod casts into an audiobook for personal use by stripping the variably-sized intro section with some perl that uses sox and pdl to search for a known sample, and then cuts off everything before and including that sample with ffmpeg. It took maybe 3 minutes per intro section. It might conceivably be possible to do this kind of thing in realtime in the future.
- thomasahle 11y ago
  That reminds me of MythTv's automatical removal of advertisements in recorded TV. One of the more advanced techniques they use, iirc, is checking for the disappearance of the channel logo, which tends to not be part of ads.

amelius 11y ago

A good ad-blocker should imho always keep a "shadow" DOM, so that 1. the ad-blocker does not interfere with the normal operation of the website (or webapp), and 2. the website can never detect that an ad-blocker is running. I'm not sure whether Opera does this.

angry-hacker 11y ago
The website can always detect an adblock. Just set a variable inside the ads.js and if it's not present, the ads are blocked. (or the file didn't load).
- amelius 11y ago
  No, the idea is that the ads.js runs on the real DOM. The shadow DOM is a copy of that DOM minus the ads. This is the DOM shown to the user.
  - angry-hacker 11y ago
    Hmm, sounds interesting, but wouldn't it need a lot of more resources for computing all that stuff? You also need to actually download and do the work with all those ads.js (that loads another 10 trackers).
  - tokenizerrr 11y ago
    Then you would still get tracked. Half the point of adblockers is prevent the ad networks from tracking you.
    - amelius 11y ago
      To prevent this, the browser could use a fresh cookie every time you visit the site, except for sites you whitelist.
  - untog 11y ago
    That removes one of the huge benefits of ad blocking - saving bandwidth.

kbart 11y ago

How stable is Opera nowadays? I'm lazily searching for a replacement for Firefox, which even fully updated, keeps crashing on all my platforms (Android, Linux, Windows) at annoying rates.

angry-hacker 11y ago
I'm using now Vivaldi, but I think it's safe to say the current Opera is the most stable Chromium fork out there.
firewalkwithme 11y ago
Really? absolutely reckless user here on all platforms, the only crashes I have on desktop are unexpected cumputer shutdowns, on mobile it sometimes crashes right after launch, looks like the UI
mintplant 11y ago
Which release channel are you on, and do you have e10s enabled?
balakk 11y ago
Latest Opera is excellent. I keep trying all other browsers periodically, since Opera Software - the company is in a bad shape. But I always keep coming back to Opera. Despite their company doing badly technically they are still doing a great job. The UI is as fluid as ever, and the rendering is rock-solid. I wish they survive and continue building this browser.

joosters 11y ago

What is their policy with analytics and tracking, beacons, etc? These are some of the most problematic and worrying add-ons to web pages for me, and yet very little gets talked about them. In theory, a well-designed browser (and well-written web pages) can still make all the 3rd party analytics requests without slowing down web site load time (e.g. they can be deferred until the page is loaded), and yet they are the things that I want to block most of all.

esaym 11y ago

Hmm, I haven't used Opera since about 2004. How is it on Linux platforms? I am getting tired of Firefox eating all my ram, and I've never been crazy about Chrome. Edit: Seems like it is just a different wrapper around the Chrome internals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_%28web_engine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_%28web_engine%29 Does it do anything differently (or better) than Chrome or FF?

evook 11y ago
wait a bit for vivaldi rc1
shwetank 11y ago
Maybe take a look here https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/3xb7n6/how_exactly_is_opera_different_from_chrome/cy4b15i https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/3xb7n6/how_ex...

known 11y ago

https://code.google.com/archive/p/qtweb/ https://code.google.com/archive/p/qtweb/ has built in http://qtweb.net/pages/ibr9700.html http://qtweb.net/pages/ibr9700.html

digi_owl 11y ago

Frankly the advertisers, and the sites that depends on them, lost the day they started doing anything but static images and text. And after a few hot clickfraud cases, we have massive scripts being downloaded for each ad to track validity of "impressions".

gorhill 11y ago

One thing I do when I benchmark is to provide all details so that other people can try to reproduce -- anybody can investigate the figures I report. There is not enough details for me to reproduce here: no sample of which web pages were used in the benchmark, no work on settings used on various blockers. Why is it so difficult to obtain such key information? I really doubt uBlock Origin's ("uBO") default settings were used given the reported timings (because 6s to load a web page). Also that uBO is reportedly only 0.2 sec faster than ABP hardly make sense to me, especially on any Chromium-based browsers. In any case, for those who want to make comparisons for themselves between blockers, here are online tools: To measure average page load speed: http://www.raymondhill.net/ublock/pageloadspeed.html http://www.raymondhill.net/ublock/pageloadspeed.html For examples, the page-load-speed tool reports ("Average (valid)" values): http://www.rollingstone.com/ http://www.rollingstone.com/: - Opera 37 + native blocker enabled: 1482.75 ms - Chrome 51 + uBlock Origin + default settings: 1729.20 ms - Chrome 51 + ABP + EasyList/EasyPrivacy minus "acceptable ads": 2467.17 ms http://techcrunch.com/ http://techcrunch.com/: - Opera 37 + native blocker enabled: 1959.10 ms (noticed ad placeholder left behind) - Chrome 51 + uBlock Origin + default settings: 1316.90 ms - Chrome 51 + ABP + EasyList/EasyPrivacy minus "acceptable ads": 2063.76 ms And another tool, to find out what is not blocked (also a rather important aspect of any blocker): http://raymondhill.net/httpsb/har-parser.html http://raymondhill.net/httpsb/har-parser.html For example, comparing what was not blocked on TechCrunch with Opera 37 native blocker and uBO + default settings: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/585534/14185866/b2309870-f749-11e5-8c37-2008e3f2ec10.png https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/585534/14185866/b...

jlarocco 11y ago

As a former long time Opera user, I'm a little sad to say I don't trust Opera to block ads for me. uBlock Origin does the job just fine, and my gut feeling is Opera will have a whitelist or not block everything. Ever since they switched to being a Chromium skin, I just don't trust them. I'm also curious how this compares against uBlock Origin. I know uBlock uses a lot less memory and seems a lot faster than ABP for me, and it's curiously missing from their comparison.

lol2016 11y ago

Have all major trackers enabled on "start-page" per default, talks about ad-blocking with a mouse click - facepalm