Proper ad blocking

[hardcoreUFO]

At the moment, when OW blocks an ad, it leaves a hideous white box where the ad used to me. This sort of defeats the purpose of blocking, I think:

http://img.skitch.com/20090304-d5pdqskfwdwq7cns17wnenpekh.jpg

Is there any way of making the box gracefully disappear, as with other ad blocking systems?

[Drayon]

At the moment, when OW blocks an ad, it leaves a hideous white box where the ad used to me. This sort of defeats the purpose of blocking, I think:

http://img.skitch.com/20090304-d5pdqskfwdwq7cns17wnenpekh.jpg

Is there any way of making the box gracefully disappear, as with other ad blocking systems?

I hope you expect something must be shown, else you may never know if a legitimate non ad image is being blocked.

[hardcoreUFO]

I hope you expect something must be shown, else you may never know if a legitimate non ad image is being blocked.

No, I dont. I want a clean, readable web page, and not a page of empty boxes. Have a look at what GlimmerBlocker or Safari AdBlock does and you will see the difference. If I want to see if there are any "false positives", I can turn off the blocker and reload the page.

[robotank]

You've mentioned GlimmerBlocker, so why not just use that? It works perfectly well with OmniWeb. In fact, I've turned off OmniWeb's integrated ad-blocking completely because I too prefer not to have those placeholders remain on the page. There are now enough filters available for GlimmerBlocker for it to achieve full-fledged blocking and replace OW's built-in blocking.

[hardcoreUFO]

You've mentioned GlimmerBlocker, so why not just use that? It works perfectly well with OmniWeb. In fact, I've turned off OmniWeb's integrated ad-blocking completely because I too prefer not to have those placeholders remain on the page. There are now enough filters available for GlimmerBlocker for it to achieve full-fledged blocking and replace OW's built-in blocking.

You are right, and thats what I would do if I decided to use OW full time. However, that's not fixing OW's ad blocking, that's using something else.

[Handycam]

You are right, and thats what I would do if I decided to use OW full time. However, that's not fixing OW's ad blocking, that's using something else.

This doesn't make any sense. If you like GlimmerBlocker, and it works the way you want, and it works with OW or any browser, then just use it as he said.

What difference does it make then if OW is "broken" as you say?

It doesn't need to be "fixed" if you can completely avoid the "broken" aspect, does it? If BP gasoline doesn't work well in my car, but Exxon works great, I just use Exxon. Do I insist BP improve its gas?

[hardcoreUFO]

This doesn't make any sense. If you like GlimmerBlocker, and it works the way you want, and it works with OW or any browser, then just use it as he said.

What difference does it make then if OW is "broken" as you say?

It doesn't need to be "fixed" if you can completely avoid the "broken" aspect, does it? If BP gasoline doesn't work well in my car, but Exxon works great, I just use Exxon. Do I insist BP improve its gas?

The point is, OW's ad blocking does not work very well, so the Omni folks might like to fix it or get rid of it. What is nonsensical about that?

[JKT]

For some of us it is ad blocking that doesn't show you what and where something has been blocked that is broken. Especially if you block Flash by default. So there isn't anything for OmnGroup to 'fix'. Add an option to collapse blocked content for those that want it, but don't do it by default or get rid of the current method for those that don't.

[robotank]

I agree with the above poster. Obviously OmniWeb's developers don't see its ad-blocking method as "broken" or they'd probably change it. Having the option to tweak ad-blocking behaviour would be a nice feature to see added in the future, but for now I'm content to use GlimmerBlocker as an alternative without seeing OW as needing to be fixed.

[Brian]

The thinking behind the current behavior is that it preserves the original layout as created by the designer, as well as giving the visitor something to click if they want to see something we've blocked. Call the boxes "hideous" if you must, but it's by design.

[jwthomas]

Actually, if you download (free) AdSubtract.css, file it anywhere in your Home folder, and install it as a custom css in your Page Appearance preferences, you'll get total ad blocking as effective as GlimmerBlocker's and you can uncheck all the OW ad blocker options. Yes, there's still those blank boxes, but if you're running OS 10.4 or earlier it's the most useful ad blocker you can find. IIRC it also works on Camino.

[technomage]

The thinking behind the current behavior is that it preserves the original layout as created by the designer, as well as giving the visitor something to click if they want to see something we've blocked. Call the boxes "hideous" if you must, but it's by design.

I much prefer the choice Omnigroup made here. Collapsing these elements can create layout and readability issues. I've also run into many cases where a match string clobbers an element needed to use a site, unintentionally or otherwise, and knowing where elements are is necessary to load them. Case in point, I block paypal cross-domain web bugs, but sometimes you just have to use their stuff.

[Drayon]

I prefer the current implementation as well. I have block 3rd party sites on and every so often i move to an address where the entire page has been blocked with a placeholder. If there was no place holder i'd have no idea that there was actually data blocking.

I have been using the Camino Nightly css based on floppymouse for such a long time now I think this used with OW's blocking is perhaps about as best that is possible.

[jwthomas]

Thanks for recommending this comprehensive css package (btw, it's "floppymoose.") I've been using AdSubtract.css, which seems pretty good, but I'll try userContent to see if there's any difference.

[jwthomas]

Thanks for recommending this comprehensive css package (btw, it's "floppymoose.") I've been using AdSubtract.css, which seems pretty good, but I'll try userContent to see if there's any difference.

I tested AdSubtract.css against the generic userContent.css that everyone offers and found AdSubtract more effective on the OmniWeb pages that I used for the tests. The "hideous spaces" that were the original subject of this thread were not affected by either blocker.

[Drayon]

Thanks for reporting back, this is certainly helpful to know about AdSubtract as a potential alternative.