4 ms·

So what did Mozilla actually do here? The blog post never gets to the point.

dang 4y ago
We've changed the URL from https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adblocking.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adbloc... to the older blog post suggested by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850531 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850753. Does that help? Edit, ok we'll revert it. Sorry all!
- lapcat 4y ago
  No? The submission was for a blog post from 2 days ago by AdGuard, and now you've made it into a blog post by Mozilla from last year. That's a pretty extreme change. The Mozilla blog post gives some background, so why not just post that link instead of changing the whole submission? This was a mistake, dang. Not to mention it doesn't have (2022). Which it didn't need, before you changed the link. The AdGuard blog post has details that the Mozilla post doesn't, such as a specific discussion about ad blocking, as well as recent developments in Chrome's deprecation timeline.
  - nixass 4y ago
    I've seen some pretty weird submission alterations recently, not sure what's purpose of that. I know there's tendency to have information linked to as close to original source as possible but it's just complete miss sometimes
    - dang 4y ago
      We haven't changed anything about how we edit titles or URLs—all these practices have been stable for many years. So if you've noticed weirder changes lately, it must just be luck of the draw. I obviously got this change wrong since people hated it so much - but no one much liked the original URL either (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850937). If there's a better article, we can change it again.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > If there's a better article, we can change it again. There's not a better article. I think people are mainly confused by the title of the article. There are 2 different links to mozilla.org with background info in the first 3 sentences of the article, so it seems like people just aren't clicking those links. To me, it's clear that the intention of the article is primarily to criticize Google and Chrome, with a contrast to the behavior of Mozilla and Firefox. Which is why the title can be a bit confusing, and people are expecting a long explanation of what Firefox did, when the point is really that Google could and ought to do better.
- hoffs 4y ago
  It's worse
- Terretta 4y ago
  Having read both -- no, it did not help. Read Moz first - very confusing how signing saved ad blocking.
  - dang 4y ago
    Sorry! I switched it back.
- guiambros 4y ago
  Much worse dang. The original article wasn't bad; it just glossed over the details. But has a lot on the background and the migration to V3, so another vote to revert to the original submission.
  - dang 4y ago
    Reverted now. Sorry!
- deadbunny 4y ago
  This is a terrible change.
- mlindner 4y ago
  No, I was very confused why the link was going to an old blog post by mozilla until I read the comments.
- kilburn 4y ago
  There are not many places on the internet where you can read the mods apologizing and backtracking on their decisions. Thanks!
SquareWheel 4y ago
Yeah, I read the post eager to see what AdGuard's thoughts were after building their MV3-based blocker, but the article never actually goes anywhere. It's just repeating Mozilla's stance from at least a year ago. I tested both AdGuard and uBlock Origin in MV3 for a while, and they seemed fine to me. Adguard's had less friction due to opting sites into cosmetic filtering by default.

dang 4y ago

We've changed the URL from https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adblocking.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adbloc... to the older blog post suggested by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850531 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850753 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850753. Does that help? Edit, ok we'll revert it. Sorry all!

lapcat 4y ago
No? The submission was for a blog post from 2 days ago by AdGuard, and now you've made it into a blog post by Mozilla from last year. That's a pretty extreme change. The Mozilla blog post gives some background, so why not just post that link instead of changing the whole submission? This was a mistake, dang. Not to mention it doesn't have (2022). Which it didn't need, before you changed the link. The AdGuard blog post has details that the Mozilla post doesn't, such as a specific discussion about ad blocking, as well as recent developments in Chrome's deprecation timeline.
- nixass 4y ago
  I've seen some pretty weird submission alterations recently, not sure what's purpose of that. I know there's tendency to have information linked to as close to original source as possible but it's just complete miss sometimes
  - dang 4y ago
    We haven't changed anything about how we edit titles or URLs—all these practices have been stable for many years. So if you've noticed weirder changes lately, it must just be luck of the draw. I obviously got this change wrong since people hated it so much - but no one much liked the original URL either (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34850937). If there's a better article, we can change it again.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > If there's a better article, we can change it again. There's not a better article. I think people are mainly confused by the title of the article. There are 2 different links to mozilla.org with background info in the first 3 sentences of the article, so it seems like people just aren't clicking those links. To me, it's clear that the intention of the article is primarily to criticize Google and Chrome, with a contrast to the behavior of Mozilla and Firefox. Which is why the title can be a bit confusing, and people are expecting a long explanation of what Firefox did, when the point is really that Google could and ought to do better.
hoffs 4y ago
It's worse
Terretta 4y ago
Having read both -- no, it did not help. Read Moz first - very confusing how signing saved ad blocking.
- dang 4y ago
  Sorry! I switched it back.
guiambros 4y ago
Much worse dang. The original article wasn't bad; it just glossed over the details. But has a lot on the background and the migration to V3, so another vote to revert to the original submission.
- dang 4y ago
  Reverted now. Sorry!
deadbunny 4y ago
This is a terrible change.
mlindner 4y ago
No, I was very confused why the link was going to an old blog post by mozilla until I read the comments.
kilburn 4y ago
There are not many places on the internet where you can read the mods apologizing and backtracking on their decisions. Thanks!

SquareWheel 4y ago

Yeah, I read the post eager to see what AdGuard's thoughts were after building their MV3-based blocker, but the article never actually goes anywhere. It's just repeating Mozilla's stance from at least a year ago. I tested both AdGuard and uBlock Origin in MV3 for a while, and they seemed fine to me. Adguard's had less friction due to opting sites into cosmetic filtering by default.