AdBlock: No show instead of grey blocks?

[webswim]

Is it possible to configure AdBlock so that it doesn't show that ads have been blocked at all? ie: instead of grey boxes where the ads would have been, just totally ignore the ads and don't render space for them at all, just reflowing text as if there never had been an ad there in the first place?

There doesn't appear to be a config option for this and there's no mention of it in the help files.

[- - e r i k - -]

Is it possible to configure AdBlock so that it doesn't show that ads have been blocked at all? ie: instead of grey boxes where the ads would have been, just totally ignore the ads and don't render space for them at all, just reflowing text as if there never had been an ad there in the first place?

There doesn't appear to be a config option for this and there's no mention of it in the help files.
I second that emotion. I am a new user of OmniWeb and Adblock seems very limited compared to similar options such as PithHelmet, Saft or AdBlock in Firefox.

[Bob Williams]

I second that emotion. I am a new user of OmniWeb and Adblock seems very limited compared to similar options such as PithHelmet, Saft or AdBlock in Firefox.

I've never used an add-on ad blocker, so I'm not sure how they work. What does removing ads from the layout altogether do to the layout? Knowing how well computers read humans' minds, and how tricky it can be to achieve a layout in the first place, it seems like the result would sometimes be quite a mess (and other times, unnoticeable).

[Handycam]

Most of the time, it's fine to collapse the white space. In others, it can ruin a layout.

I have no problem with leaving the empty space (as OW does). For image-based ads, it's empty (white/clear). It's Flash ads and Iframe ads that leave the grey. If this bothers me, I just use CSS to set the element to display:none.

That being said, it would be nice if ALL blocked content in OW was treated like blocked images -- empty white space or the debossed "frame". I.E. no gray.

[Forrest]

This is kind of funny, I actually like how OW does it more than Adblock. When using FF, it irks me when an image gets blocked and it's my only way to continue on the site. I haven't found an easy way to add it to a whitelist. In OW there's the box there (which you guys don't like) and I can click on that and choose to load the image. How does one do that in FF?

I find the Adblock preferences confusing. First I look in prefrences. Nutton. Okay, I understand this is an Extension so I look under "Tools." (Even though that doesn't make sense.) I see Adblock and that provides more options. At the bottom of all those is Preferences. Once there, one sees one big button that says "Adblock Options Help Revert." That doesn't make any sense to me. Then I think "maybe that box isn't supposed to make it look like a button?" Sure enough, there are separate text links on that one button, erm, in that one box.

Confusing.

So I click on Adblock Options and now I'm a little confused by what the difference between Options and Preferences are. I though I was already there, but no, now I get a contextual menu. Did I right-click by accident? I try again, nope, that's how it works. That's strange, it's text link, not a pulldown?

Confusing.

So there's a "browser window" section with the first option being "Obj-tabs" What's that? "Object Tabs?" Now is that as in a noun "a material thing that can be seen and touched" or a verb "say something to express one's disapproval of or disagreement with something"??? I don't really object to using tabs, and I don't have a clue what an "Object Tab" would be.

Confusing.

I could go on about this, but you get the idea. I mention all this because I like the boxes. I like being able to click on them and make something happen, rather than having to dig through all the confusing steps Adblock has to offer.

[webswim]

This is kind of funny, I actually like how OW does it more than Adblock. When using FF, it irks me when an image gets blocked and it's my only way to continue on the site.

I'm coming back to OW having been using Safari w/ PithHelmet for years. It chops all ads out of the layout, and just reflows text and it's great. 99% of the time, removing all ad elements will not affect a site at all.

Yes, on a small percentage of sites you will find that you will need to click on a blocked element to proceed, but even when this element is hidden it is usually immediately obvious and you can just choose to reload the page without AdBlock interfering (Shift-Cmd-I, Show All Images).

Ads are annoying because they distract you from the page you are reading, both by being colourful and out of place, and also by being inserted right into the middle of what you're doing, ie: the interruption of your flow of reading is also a pain in the arse. The most used case is clearly "I want nothing to do with ads", so I believe they should not be given any space at all.

[Forrest]

Just because I want to load one image that has been blocked, doesn't mean I want them all to load. Quite the contrary. If a site has blocked stuff on it, I only want to load individual items if needed. And I don't want to have to dig through the code and find file names to pull that off.

IME, the majority of the time a site's design is still poor when the space holder is gone. If you find a site layout to be poor with ads, it's only a coincidence if it gets better without them.

[webswim]

Quite a few news sites stick a bloody big ad in the middle of their articles (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/ for examples), and in circumstances like that, hiding the grey box is far superior than leaving it there.

I accept that you like it the way it is. Look back at my original question. All I'm asking for is a checkbox that says "don't show blocked stuff as grey boxes" or something similar.

[Forrest]

Look back at my original question. All I'm asking for is a checkbox that says "don't show blocked stuff as grey boxes" or something similar.

Yeah. The conversation had drifted from your original question to a debate on which way it should work so I was replying to that.

[webswim]

Yeah. The conversation had drifted from your original question to a debate on which way it should work so I was replying to that.

Ooops, sorry for the confusion.

[Forrest]

Ooops, sorry for the confusion.

I was adding to it too, so sorry about that.

[Handycam]

In Privoxy, there's a pref to either hide ads, show a grey box, and a third option I forget. Perhaps someday we could have a choice on how to treat filtered content.

FWIW, I like the empty "frames" in OW. I like to know something has been blocked, and where and what size it was. Helps to spot "good" content that got blocked in error.

[David Latapie]

Is it possible to configure AdBlock so that it doesn't show that ads have been blocked at all? ie: instead of grey boxes where the ads would have been, just totally ignore the ads and don't render space for them at all, just reflowing text as if there never had been an ad there in the first place?Code-wise, it would be a post-rendering operation with display:none. Even better, a pre-rendering display:none, as display:none'd code is usually not rendered at all, hence making site load faster: no more web crawling because of tons of ads!

<plus_one>No need to say I also ask for such an enhancement</plus_one>

[Michael B]

I absolutely agree - the option to "collapse" blocked content like Pithhelmet would be extremely welcome!

[Len Case]

Even better, a pre-rendering display:none, as display:none'd code is usually not rendered at all, hence making site load faster: no more web crawling because of tons of ads!
I should note that our ad-blocking doesn't fetch the resources that are blocked. Which is a big advantage over some other methods.

I would be willing to add a preference for collapsing blocked content to a future version. We might even be able to uncollapse it as well.

[David Latapie]

I should note that our ad-blocking doesn't fetch the resources that are blocked. Which is a big advantage over some other methods.I didn't knew it, this is great news.I would be willing to add a preference for collapsing blocked content to a future version. We might even be able to uncollapse it as well.Individual uncollapsing seems incompatible with “no bloody artifact on my page”, as it would require at a minimum some kind of link for uncollapsing. On the other hand, generic uncollapsing is much easier: The “Loads images and other embedded media” button could be inspirational.

[zottel]

Well, it could be a generic "Uncollapse blocked content" item in the right-click-menu for the page - which should, of course, not load the content, but show the placeholder boxes.

And that would really be a terrific feature. :-) I prefer the boxes over collapsed content, but only because they make it possible to load stuff that was a false positive in my ad blocking list. If I could have clean sites AND the possibility to load blocked content afterwards ... WOW! :-))

[David Latapie]

Well, it could be a generic "Uncollapse blocked content" item in the right-click-menu for the page - which should, of course, not load the content, but show the placeholder boxes.

And that would really be a terrific feature. :-) I prefer the boxes over collapsed content, but only because they make it possible to load stuff that was a false positive in my ad blocking list. If I could have clean sites AND the possibility to load blocked content afterwards ... WOW! :-))I second you on this :-) After, contextual menu or menu button, this is a matter of preference (and it would be trivial to have both, and we already have the menu icon in Preferences/Adblock).