Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
uBlock Origin default because I still use proprietary Windows OS software.

Roughly similar to using Adblock Plus with many filter lists.

Ads are blocked through EasyList and Peter Lowe’s Ad server list, and privacy exposure is reduced through the use of EasyPrivacy. Some malware filter lists are selected by default. Also, uBlock Origin's own filter lists are selected as complement to the selected 3rd-party filter lists.

This mode is suitable for those who are concerned about reducing their privacy exposure, but yet still prefer an install-and-forget approach.

Characteristics

  • Low likelihood of web pages being broken.
  • Web pages should load somewhat faster compared to the very easy mode.
Wiki: gorhill/uBlock/wiki
 

TairikuOkami

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
The less the better, I just use the optimized lists from Adguard it blocks every AD for me.
I am facing the opposite challenge, I do not want to block a single AD (except youtube), but anti-tracking also blocks ADs, thus it is very difficult to find the right filters. Out of all extensions, adguard is the only one, that somewhat works. Fanboy's filters are out of question, they block googleadsense and such.
 

Attachments

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
For Ublock users :

1. Which is the first filters that UBO prioritizes, static filters or dynamic filters (under My filters and My Rules) ?
2. What's best for browser performances (speed connection), no (or just a fewer) static filters or no (a just a fewer) dynamic filters ?
From what I understand, there are two types of filters, network filters and cosmetic filters. Network filters are faster, as they usually block the main source responsible for the ads and trackers. But all ads can't be removed through simply blocking the host and that's where cosmetic filters are required to block ads, tracker scripts, remove empty ad placeholder, cookie notice, etc.
Filters like EasyList, Adguard Base they contain both network and cosmetic filters in them which are required for a better user experience. Filters like, "Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list" are network filters only and something like "Fanboy’s Annoyance" usually contains cosmetic filters only.
Having multiple filter lists containing duplicate network filters eg: "Peter Lowe's list and 1host (mini)" shouldn't hamper performance because duplicates are ignored by adblockers but having multiple cosmetic filters eg: "Fanboy's Annoyance and Adguard Annoyance" containing similar and identical rules would hamper performance because cosmetic filters won't be identical always and can be written in various ways. Two different types of rules can have the same purpose of removing the same thing eg: Cookie notice, so your adblocker will have to do some extra work checking both set of rules. Even though the performance impact is not really/barely noticeable at least in uBlock Origin which is the fastest adblocker, it's better to avoid multiple cosmetic filters which have the same purpose.
Now for what I'm doing since last month is, I got rid of the Peter Lowe's list on my uBO and added 1host (mini) because these are network filters and 1host (mini) contains everything Peter Lowe's list has and more, so more ads and tracker domains are now blocked by this list. But I must say this is not necessary for everyone. I also use Adguard DNS which can take care of first party trackers so not using Frogeye's tracker list either.
I also got rid of Adguard Annoyance and I don't care about cookies in favor of "Fanboy's Annoyance" only as the later already does what the previous two do, so less cosmetic and duplicate filters to worry about for uBO.
One more thing, it is recommended to use EasyList, Fanboy's related lists in uBO and Adguard related lists in Adguard as uBO can't parse all the rules from Adguard filters and vice versa.
Last but not least, as I said in my previous comment, if I see any missed ad, empty ad placeholders, false positives then I report it to the filter list maintainers so not only me but also thousands of users using those filters are benefitted from my report. So, if anyone have the time and patience please consider doing the same if possible when you come across those to help us all.
 

plat1098

Level 21
Verified
You actually did a comparison study betw. AdGuard and uBlock Origin as far as hardware resource consumption is concerned. It was a nice read.


I got rid of the Peter Lowe's list on my uBO and added 1host (mini) because these are network filters and 1host (mini) contains everything Peter Lowe's list has and more
The main reason to get 1Hosts (mini). (y) Here's part of my uBlock Origin configuration, I've disabled many built-ins:

ubo snip.PNG

I also ensure that most, if not all, entries are in use. I continue to question whether some/most of the built-in filter lists like the malware domains are necessary--furthermore, over at Wilders there was mention that some malware domain filters should be deprecated as they're not being updated consistently, if at all.
 

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
For Ublock users :

1. Which is the first filters that UBO prioritizes, static filters or dynamic filters (under My filters and My Rules) ?
2. What's best for browser performances (speed connection), no (or just a fewer) static filters or no (a just a fewer) dynamic filters ?
1. Dynamic filters always being prioritized first except when you use noop. In noop, uBO will ignore the dynamic filter and look up for matching pattern from static filters then act accordingly.
2. Fewer static filters will give you better performance. Why? Because static filters are comprised of hostname patterns, element hiding and sometimes even regex. It rules has varies degree of complexity so naturally it will give you performance hit if you have big list.
 

floalma

Level 4
Verified
Thanks @SeriousHoax and @redsworn for this detailed explanation. :)

@SeriousHoax You're talking about static filters but what about dynamic filters ?

A few questions is coming to my mind

1. I've just noticed that check or uncheck 'Disable cosmetic filtering' doesn't increase or decrease the amount of cosmetic filters from the 'filters list' ? I don't know the reason.

2. What's the purpose of 'Ignore generic cosmetic filters' ? What are 'generic cosmetic filters' ?

3. What's regex ?

4. For which reason, dynamic filters are lesser performance for browsers speed ?
 
Last edited:

South Park

Level 7
Verified
Now for what I'm doing since last month is, I got rid of the Peter Lowe's list on my uBO and added 1host (mini) because these are network filters and 1host (mini) contains everything Peter Lowe's list has and more
One thing to note is that unlike Peter Lowe's, 1host mini does not include google-analytics (to reduce site breakage), though the 1host complete list includes it. uBO Privacy list has its own rules to handle GA, so it shouldn't be a problem for uBO users. For those using ABP, it would be desirable to add Fanboy's Enhanced Tracking List to block GA tracking because Easy Privacy takes a cautious approach by allowing a lot of GA scripts.
 

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
Thanks @SeriousHoax and @redsworn for this detailed explanation. :)

@SeriousHoax You're talking about static filters but what about dynamic filters ?

A few questions is coming to my mind

1. I've just noticed that check or uncheck 'Disable cosmetic filtering' doesn't increase or decrease the amount of cosmetic filters from the 'filters list' ? I don't know the reason.

2. What's the purpose of 'Ignore generic cosmetic filters' ? What are 'generic cosmetic filters' ?

3. What's regex ?

4. For which reason, dynamic filters are lesser performance for browsers speed ?
1. I don't have nowhere near enough knowledge about uBO internals to answer this. But if I may guess it probably just act like a switch to tell uBO to ignore cosmetic filters.

2. There's a symbol next to it which you can hover. It will tell you what it is and/or what it does. In fact almost every option and pane in uBO have symbol next to them which either giving you info by hovering with your mouse or link you to uBO documentations.

3. Regular expression.

4. Not quite understand what are you trying to ask here. Maybe take a look at the link below if you want to read about it.
 

floalma

Level 4
Verified
@redsworn

2. I already read the text next to the symbol. If I disable 'Ignore generic cosmetic filters', it doesn't disable all the 'cosmetic filters' but only a few of them, why ? It looks like that 'generic cosmetic filters' are different from the others cosmetic filters.
3. Could you give an example, please ?
4. This question is about your reply 'Fewer static filters will give you better performance. Why? Because static filters are comprised of hostname patterns, element hiding and sometimes even regex. It rules has varies degree of complexity so naturally it will give you performance hit if you have big list.'
So how do you know that dynamic filters can affect on performance (speed connection) ?
 

redsworn

Level 4
Verified
@redsworn

2. I already read the text next to the symbol. If I disable 'Ignore generic cosmetic filters', it doesn't disable all the 'cosmetic filters' but only a few of them, why ? It looks like that 'generic cosmetic filters' are different from the others cosmetic filters.
3. Could you give an example, please ?
4. This question is about your reply 'Fewer static filters will give you better performance. Why? Because static filters are comprised of hostname patterns, element hiding and sometimes even regex. It rules has varies degree of complexity so naturally it will give you performance hit if you have big list.'
So how do you know that dynamic filters can affect on performance (speed connection) ?
2. I meant this symbol.
1593868115992.png

It's just the same as regular cosmetic filter. There's no difference in syntax or anything. The only difference is it applies globally since it doesn't contain any hostname. Let's say you have example.com##.banner-ad, its generic rule would be ##.banner-ad.

3. I'm bad at regex, like super bad. :ROFLMAO: So here I just copied some from easylist.
Code:
/\.accountant\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
/\.bid\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
/\.click\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
/\.club\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
/\.com\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
/\.cricket\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest
4. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to insinuate. Not your fault, because I realize how messy my reply was after I re-read it again. :sleep:
To put it simply, big static filters could slow down your browser because of the reason I mentioned before, especially on low-end devices. Dynamic filters on the other hand shouldn't really affect the performance due to the simplicity of its syntax. You can do some tests to measure their impact on the performance.
 
Top