4 ms·
Yep. It blocks the Like buttons and other stupid widgets, which is how the cookies get sent. That also has the pleasant side-effect of drastically decreasing lo
by JonnieCache 15y ago
Yep. It blocks the Like buttons and other stupid widgets, which is how the cookies get sent. That also has the pleasant side-effect of drastically decreasing load times.
I highly recommend it. Be aware that it does block disqus by default, I usually whitelist that one.
- Periodic 15y agoI had a few problems with the blocking when actually going to the sites in question. I believe I had to unblock Google Plus, Google Analytics and Facebook when actually visiting those sites. However, I'm happy that most of the time it prevents the annoying features of a page from loading.
- JonnieCache 15y agoI've never had that problem. That'd be a pretty big flaw in ghostery if that was the case.
- cpeterso 15y agoI've had problems with Ghostery blocking cookies and web bugs that prevent some Flash videos on YouTube, Hulu, and the New York Times from playing.
- brador 15y agoWould using noScript with firefox work?
- sequoia 15y agoYes. Ghostery is much more targeted however, it blocks scripts based on a blacklist (of trackers) rather than blocking ALL scripts. Ghostery is much more user/non-techie friendly; the only time you need to mess with it is: a) You want to allow some service (I allow disqus, for example): disable blocking for the service b) A site requires facebook/twitter to log in, or you trust the site: whitelist the site (allows all tracking scripts) I do wish it had a "allow by domain" so I could allow e.g. just facebook on just turntable.fm so I can log in, but not allow all of ttfn's other trackers. Works fine on abc.com ;) http://screencast.com/t/01D8EF6AH5ij http://screencast.com/t/01D8EF6AH5ij