Why do I not normally use privoxy? I'm not sure. It's so easy, I really have no excuse:
apt-get install privoxy- Tell your browser to use localhost:8118 as a proxy.
Looking at the manual talking about it being a "black art" makes me think that at least ad-blocking is a perfect setup for machine learning: allow the user to flag images they wish were blocked, and then use features like the image source hostname, image URL components, image dimensions, as well as the target hostname (e.g., there are no banners on livejournal.com, so if they have bannery-looking things they're still not banners) to train a system. Then you (maybe?) wouldn't need a config system that lets me tweak rules manually...
For years now I've been using a filtering proxy similar to Privoxy. In fact, Evan has commented on it before as a comparison to GreaseMonkey. My filtering proxy setup has grown into a bit of a convulted mess over the years, and is now even accompanied by some GreaseMonkey-style Opera “user javascript”, but I did start off with a fairly standard ad-blocking setup with some extra frills.
From way back when I've encountered image files that have an unfortunate size while also having “ad” in their URLs, and in fact just two days ago at work I was implementing a site which has some things resembling ads; remembering the behavior of my filters, I avoided calling the ads anything resembling the words advert, promotion or marketing. As a result, the images have some pretty wacky names, but they should defeat these dumbass ad filters. I feel kinda evil doing it, but then I'm getting paid for my expertise and how to avoid my own ad-blocking filter is part of my expertise, so I suppose it's acceptable in the way that I use to convince myself that it really doesn't matter if I do things I would normally object to in response to money. Or something.
but do you think someone who went to all that trouble to block adverts is going to click on them even if you can force them to appear? i never feel bad finding ways to hide adverts because i never, ever visit them. (not because i have any kind of moral objection to them, i just don't have any interest to.)
This site is an interesting case, because we're essentially being paid to develop an adverts site. I really don't get the point of it, but my boss seems to think it's a good idea so I'm developing it. The site consists of a completely money-driven directory, a bunch of “Featured Brands” which are just companies that have paid to have their logo placed on every page and a few old-fashioned banner ads. There is little content other than this. I really don't get it, but I've convinced myself that if someone is viewing the site they obviously want to see these adverts, even if they normally don't like adverts shoved into the middle of articles or whatever.
I don't think anyone's going to look at this site anyway, so this makes little difference in practice. ;)
Sad! You're so talented, Martin, it's a shame you think your talents are going to waste.
I think it's more that the site isn't aimed at people like me so I just can't imagine why people would visit it. For all I know there are people out there who hunt out adverts for the most expensive products available, or whatever the hell this site's target audience is. ;)
Also, Privoxy makes some sites work better. For example,
An option would be to inject the javascript for it at the proxy layer =)
In way of reply to the ad-vs-none thread: i love text ads. They're almost always well-targeted, and i'll click on them freely to learn about the products. I'm po', so i'm not buying much now, but i will definitely click around to learn about things.
1) have the blocked image contain the URL of the original image (something like img src="http://privoxy/blocked-image?orig=http://whatever)
2) make it so an extra URL param to blocked-image would make it unblock the image
3) right-click on blocked image, change URL manually