Q&A UbO Filter Lists for Best UbO Performance?

SearchLight

Level 13
Thread author
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jul 3, 2017
612
I was reading several posts on this site regarding filter lists for UbO with some recommending Custom Filter Lists which I found on the Filter List site and added.

As you can see in the attached image, I have disabled UbO filters because some suggested they are redundant.

My question is do you think my current filter lists are adequate enough for optimal performance of UbO, and browsing? I have not noticed any slowdowns.


UbO.png
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 22
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 1, 2019
1,126
@oldschool and @Gandalf_The_Grey I am curious what percentage of blocks uBO reports when you use browser's build in adblocker and DNS blocklists. My uBO blocks 13% of the domains (with only Kees1958 Top500 = 539 network filters and 70+ My Filter rules). I have cosmetic filtering disabled and only use uBO on demand with Edge anti-tracking and no advertising blocklists in NextDNS.
 

oldschool

Level 66
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
5,585
@oldschool and @Gandalf_The_Grey I am curious what percentage of blocks uBO reports when you use browser's build in adblocker and DNS blocklists. My uBO blocks 13% of the domains (with only Kees1958 Top500 = 539 network filters and 70+ My Filter rules). I have cosmetic filtering disabled and only use uBO on demand with Edge anti-tracking and no advertising blocklists in NextDNS.
Maybe I posted in the wrong thread. I'm only using built-in blockers in my browsers. I have Kees @security123 3000 list in Edge "Other" folder. I don't have µBO enabled ATM.

Edit: Maybe too many µBO/blocker threads? 🤔
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 59
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Apr 24, 2016
4,841
@oldschool and @Gandalf_The_Grey I am curious what percentage of blocks uBO reports when you use browser's build in adblocker and DNS blocklists. My uBO blocks 13% of the domains (with only Kees1958 Top500 = 539 network filters and 70+ My Filter rules). I have cosmetic filtering disabled and only use uBO on demand with Edge anti-tracking and no advertising blocklists in NextDNS.
For me it's only 4%, mainly because I use Edge Tracking protection on Strict and made exceptions (no filtering by Edge) for local news sites to see embedded social media content. Those sites will be filtered by uBlock Origin only.
Now at 5%...
 
Last edited:

ANNOx

Level 2
Sep 26, 2020
43
I use these extra filters on medium mode with Ublock filters .Edge tracking protection on balanced. I haven't faced any issues on any websites so far .

1)AdGuard Base
2)AdGuard Annoyances
3)hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers-hosts
4) Extremely Condensed Adblocking List
5)Dandelion Sprout's Annoying Banners and Overlays List
6)uBlock filters – Annoyances
7)EasyPrivacy
8)Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 22
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 1, 2019
1,126
I was reading several posts on this site regarding filter lists for UbO with some recommending Custom Filter Lists which I found on the Filter List site and added.

As you can see in the attached image, I have disabled UbO filters because some suggested they are redundant.
When you have Google Safe browsing or Edge Smartscreen enabled, you don't need malware filter URL's. Better use a DNS service which also blocks malware (that list is probably 10 to 20 times larger and it does not cost you any CPU cycles).

I have especially crafted a uBO for setup for you. Save your own settings first (so you can easily switch back to your setup) and use the uBO-settings file attached. Use it for a day or so and report back whether you noticed any differences.
 

Attachments

  • my-ublock-backup_cosmetic_enabled.txt
    2.7 KB · Views: 207

ErzCrz

Level 11
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Aug 19, 2019
530
When you have Google Safe browsing or Edge Smartscreen enabled, you don't need malware filter URL's. Better use a DNS service which also blocks malware (that list is probably 10 to 20 times larger and it does not cost you any CPU cycles).

I have especially crafted a uBO for setup for you. Save your own settings first (so you can easily switch back to your setup) and use the uBO-settings file attached. Use it for a day or so and report back whether you noticed any differences.
Thanks, I'll give this a go :)
 

Lenny_Fox

Level 22
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 1, 2019
1,126
Easy List filters are mostly written for AdBlockPlus rules. AdGuard and UBlock introduced more powerful advanced rules and the developers decided to increase interoperability. ABP sort of joined them for the most common advanced block rules. So now some rules are interoperable, some advanced rules only have simular syntax (e.g. you can use most scriptlets from uBo in Adguard by replacing ##+js with #%#//scriptlet ).

AdBlock, AdGuard and uBlock are sort of loosely coupled, working together on syntax to increase filter efficiency, but also developing solution specific advanced features to differentiate them from each other. To benefit from the most advanced rules it is good tactic to use the Adguard optimized Easlylist filters combined with the uBO blocklist (like I showed in post #68)
 

silversurfer

Level 83
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Well-known
Aug 17, 2014
7,280
My new installed(custom) adblocker list in Adguard for desktop

View attachment 252876

Really wondering how is your browsing speed with much different custom filters on Adguard for Windows ? :unsure:
I'm using as well Adguard for Windows but here too many added custom filters causing slowdowns while browsing...
 

HarborFront

Level 61
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Oct 9, 2016
5,063
Really wondering how is your browsing speed with much different custom filters on Adguard for Windows ? :unsure:
I'm using as well Adguard for Windows but here too many added custom filters causing slowdowns while browsing...
Generally mine is ok except some websites which are notoriously slow to open. Also, I'm always using double VPNs for net surfing which might have contributed to the aforementioned issue.