3 ms·

Interesting, in the Messages and Proxies[1] page, Apple has ad-blocking as an example which actually blocks the ads from being loaded using the `beforeload` eve

by sirn 16y ago

Interesting, in the Messages and Proxies[1] page, Apple has ad-blocking as an example which actually blocks the ads from being loaded using the `beforeload` event (as oppose to hide them after they're loaded): > Safari 5.0 and later (and other Webkit-based browsers) generates a “beforeload” event before loading each sub-resource belonging to a webpage. The “beforeload” event is generated before loading every script, iframe, image, or stylesheet specified in the webpage, for example. Isn't this exactly what the NoScript's author says Chrome extension was lacking[2]? [1]: http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Tools/Conceptual/SafariExtensionGuide/MessagesandProxies/MessagesandProxies.html http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Tool... [2]: http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/ http://hackademix.net/2009/12/10/why-chrome-has-no-noscript/

ComputerGuru 16y ago
Can I be honest and not be thought less of for it? I actually like Chrome's "load then hide" version of AdBlock because the ad impression counts. It doesn't do much for PPC ads, but for PPI, the website owner has "made an impression" with the ad unit. Of course, it's robbing the advertiser at the same time....
- potatolicious 16y ago
  I'd rather it not count. AdBlock originated out of a deep annoyance/hatred for distracting, exploitative ads - but has since grown to cover just about every advertiser out there, good and bad. Many people install AdBlock without seemingly realizing this difference. What I would like to see a much more discerning ad-blocking solution that punishes scammy, distracting, or otherwise abusive ads, and rewards advertisers that create consumer-friendly ads. With a load-then-hide system the website owner has fewer effective metrics on whether or not people are actively blocking his ads. Perhaps when his impressions start dropping precipitously he would be much more compelled to act. Of course, all of this hinges on the existence of a trusted adblock source that takes upon itself great pains to maintain a list that bans only abusive advertisers. I'm not holding my breath.
  - rythie 16y ago
    Me too, I'd like to see a block list that only blocked annoying ads. I actually blogged about annoying advertising here: http://posterous.richardcunningham.co.uk/the-problem-with-online-advertising http://posterous.richardcunningham.co.uk/the-problem-with-on...
- cheald 16y ago
  On the flip side, it still leaves you vulnerable to Flash-based exploits and consumes related resources (thus increasing overall load time), which is one of the biggest benefits of a pre-block system.
Lewisham 16y ago
Even if it was, I can't say I've ever understood the people for whom blocking ads was so paramount they'd rather have a page load slower so the ads would never even be glanced, versus a page that loads fast and hides them afterwards. It all seems a bit backwards, to me.
- KirinDave 16y ago
  Why would they be perceptibly slower?
- chousuke 16y ago
  My experience is exactly to the contrary. Often ads are loaded from some horribly slow server and it slows down the browser which has to wait for them, reflowing the content after each one. Not to mention that ads often change when the page is reloaded, so they're not cache-friendly either. Compared to downloading the ads, the overhead of running a blocker is negligible, no matter how fast your connection is. I think it's the main reason Chrome (even with the ad blocker) actually feels slower on many sites compared to Firefox with AdBlock. It may win in terms of raw speed, but Firefox actually has to spend less effort loading the resources, which is a larger gain.
aboodman 16y ago
I think in order to make NoScript work you'd also need the ability to block <script> that is inline, not just script that is loaded remotely.
- sirn 16y ago
  I think the event will include inline contents too, but there's no way to test it right now since it doesn't seems to be enabled in the the current release of Safari 5.

by sirn 16y ago

ComputerGuru 16y ago

Can I be honest and not be thought less of for it? I actually like Chrome's "load then hide" version of AdBlock because the ad impression counts. It doesn't do much for PPC ads, but for PPI, the website owner has "made an impression" with the ad unit. Of course, it's robbing the advertiser at the same time....

potatolicious 16y ago
I'd rather it not count. AdBlock originated out of a deep annoyance/hatred for distracting, exploitative ads - but has since grown to cover just about every advertiser out there, good and bad. Many people install AdBlock without seemingly realizing this difference. What I would like to see a much more discerning ad-blocking solution that punishes scammy, distracting, or otherwise abusive ads, and rewards advertisers that create consumer-friendly ads. With a load-then-hide system the website owner has fewer effective metrics on whether or not people are actively blocking his ads. Perhaps when his impressions start dropping precipitously he would be much more compelled to act. Of course, all of this hinges on the existence of a trusted adblock source that takes upon itself great pains to maintain a list that bans only abusive advertisers. I'm not holding my breath.
- rythie 16y ago
  Me too, I'd like to see a block list that only blocked annoying ads. I actually blogged about annoying advertising here: http://posterous.richardcunningham.co.uk/the-problem-with-online-advertising http://posterous.richardcunningham.co.uk/the-problem-with-on...
cheald 16y ago
On the flip side, it still leaves you vulnerable to Flash-based exploits and consumes related resources (thus increasing overall load time), which is one of the biggest benefits of a pre-block system.

Lewisham 16y ago

Even if it was, I can't say I've ever understood the people for whom blocking ads was so paramount they'd rather have a page load slower so the ads would never even be glanced, versus a page that loads fast and hides them afterwards. It all seems a bit backwards, to me.

KirinDave 16y ago
Why would they be perceptibly slower?
chousuke 16y ago
My experience is exactly to the contrary. Often ads are loaded from some horribly slow server and it slows down the browser which has to wait for them, reflowing the content after each one. Not to mention that ads often change when the page is reloaded, so they're not cache-friendly either. Compared to downloading the ads, the overhead of running a blocker is negligible, no matter how fast your connection is. I think it's the main reason Chrome (even with the ad blocker) actually feels slower on many sites compared to Firefox with AdBlock. It may win in terms of raw speed, but Firefox actually has to spend less effort loading the resources, which is a larger gain.

aboodman 16y ago

I think in order to make NoScript work you'd also need the ability to block <script> that is inline, not just script that is loaded remotely.

sirn 16y ago
I think the event will include inline contents too, but there's no way to test it right now since it doesn't seems to be enabled in the the current release of Safari 5.