Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Browsers
Web Extensions
µBlock Origin blocks "https://ipm-provider.ff.avast.com/"
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lenny_Fox" data-source="post: 888801" data-attributes="member: 82776"><p>I explicitly mention non-linear search mechanisms in the examples I gave. Technically you are forgetting the time it takes to convert and index the external lineair data (the filters) into memory at first launch of the extension and when updating filters. But as mentioned earlier, the compelling argument against 'user maintained filters with many rules'' is not the processing power of the CPU or the extension's search mechanism, but the fact that those lists contain a lot of dead rules and have rules for websites with very low visitor rates (so the chance this rules will ever be beneficial or triggered is near to zero).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes I know of these articles I used them in the thread <a href="https://malwaretips.com/threads/adblocking-innovation.98862/" target="_blank">adblocking innovation</a>: When you participate in Brave's filters, you also are aware of the "the mounting cost of stale adblocking rules" article published by Brave team. [quote from article] <em><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>Brave found that a large percentage (> 90%) of EasyList appears to provide little benefit for common browsing cases, due to its large size and accumulation of stale (rarely used or even expired) rules. </strong></span></em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"> So your friends at Brave confirm what I stated im my response above <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></span></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now you are on my territory (I am a digital marketeer). Two reason's why your personally experience is not relevant for the broad majority of people</p><p></p><p>1. Digital time spending habits</p><p>Most people tend to spend more than 80% of their digital time on the same websites/games/social media/entertainment portals. So your 50 percent time spend on 'other' websites is quite extra ordinary (in marketing we call that a self-refence error when marketeers assume that their own experience/preference is also applicable for their customers).</p><p></p><p>2. "Gone with the wind" views</p><p>In marketing community, the customers (the digital marketeers like me) are not worried about ad-blockers, the producers (ad and tracking networks and Google, Facebook, Amazone and their display networks) are worried because ad-blockers reduce their income. This marketing controversy is called "Gone with the wind views" (a tongue in cheek reference to famous last words of that movie). This controversy is about the buying readiness of the audience on the websites which profit by advertising and the pay per view costs of ads for marketeers.</p><p></p><p>In short most marketeers don't give a damn about ad-blockers blocking ads, because these ads were shown to an audience which is not ready to buy anyway (these ad-views would have low click through and conversion rates). Using the laws of capitalisms, those means of bypassing ad-blockers will probably not become mainstream because there is no demand for these advanced services (bypassing adblockers) from digital marketeers. Even the example you gave to proof your point, PopAds (using countless domains to bypass ad-blockers, like PropellerAds) has a marginal, near to zero market share and proof the point I am making <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />.</p><p></p><p>source W3tech: <a href="https://w3techs.com/technologies/comparison/ad-popads,ad-propellerads" target="_blank">PopAds vs. PropellerAds usage statistics, June 2020</a></p><p>[ATTACH=full]242598[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lenny_Fox, post: 888801, member: 82776"] I explicitly mention non-linear search mechanisms in the examples I gave. Technically you are forgetting the time it takes to convert and index the external lineair data (the filters) into memory at first launch of the extension and when updating filters. But as mentioned earlier, the compelling argument against 'user maintained filters with many rules'' is not the processing power of the CPU or the extension's search mechanism, but the fact that those lists contain a lot of dead rules and have rules for websites with very low visitor rates (so the chance this rules will ever be beneficial or triggered is near to zero). Yes I know of these articles I used them in the thread [URL='https://malwaretips.com/threads/adblocking-innovation.98862/']adblocking innovation[/URL]: When you participate in Brave's filters, you also are aware of the "the mounting cost of stale adblocking rules" article published by Brave team. [quote from article] [I][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]Brave found that a large percentage (> 90%) of EasyList appears to provide little benefit for common browsing cases, due to its large size and accumulation of stale (rarely used or even expired) rules. [/B][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)] So your friends at Brave confirm what I stated im my response above :)[/COLOR] Now you are on my territory (I am a digital marketeer). Two reason's why your personally experience is not relevant for the broad majority of people 1. Digital time spending habits Most people tend to spend more than 80% of their digital time on the same websites/games/social media/entertainment portals. So your 50 percent time spend on 'other' websites is quite extra ordinary (in marketing we call that a self-refence error when marketeers assume that their own experience/preference is also applicable for their customers). 2. "Gone with the wind" views In marketing community, the customers (the digital marketeers like me) are not worried about ad-blockers, the producers (ad and tracking networks and Google, Facebook, Amazone and their display networks) are worried because ad-blockers reduce their income. This marketing controversy is called "Gone with the wind views" (a tongue in cheek reference to famous last words of that movie). This controversy is about the buying readiness of the audience on the websites which profit by advertising and the pay per view costs of ads for marketeers. In short most marketeers don't give a damn about ad-blockers blocking ads, because these ads were shown to an audience which is not ready to buy anyway (these ad-views would have low click through and conversion rates). Using the laws of capitalisms, those means of bypassing ad-blockers will probably not become mainstream because there is no demand for these advanced services (bypassing adblockers) from digital marketeers. Even the example you gave to proof your point, PopAds (using countless domains to bypass ad-blockers, like PropellerAds) has a marginal, near to zero market share and proof the point I am making :). source W3tech: [URL='https://w3techs.com/technologies/comparison/ad-popads,ad-propellerads']PopAds vs. PropellerAds usage statistics, June 2020[/URL] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1591866093349.png"]242598[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top