Err.. That's what the huge power button is for, to whitelist the site you are on -- it's even written right under the button.
Bad things happen when instinct is used. The big button I thought it was to disable the filters everywhere. Once I read on the SMS I received from my mobile provider that the roaming fees were 25 euro/mb instead of 25 cents/mb.
Looks to be good. Anyone have any recommendations on which lists to use? I want the most of everything blocked without a ton of overlap, but I also do not want the browsing experience slowed down by having too many checked (as is the case with ABP - not sure about uBlock)
No, I don't use any Social, Multipurpose or Regional filters. I suggest that you try different combinations and see what suits you best.
I actually strongly suggest the multipurpose. For instance, I saw Dan Pollock's was updated to include documented fingerprinting as per researchers findings. This is what I've been using since the beginning and frankly I really do not see site breakage. When it rarely occurs, I rather whitelist one site than live without these. Don't worry about performance (unless you are on low powered device I suppose), it's well optimized, and the parser discards duplicates (this explains why used count is lower than total count).
I am certainly not on a low powered machine. I just want everything to perform as fast as possible. If I check all the multipurpose, I know I can uncheck all the ones fanboy ultimate covers, but are there any others that are redundant?
Thanks gorhill for sharing your settings. I will set it the same way and will see if I notice any change in performance.
Fanboy's Social Blocking is already included in the Fanboy's Annoyance List, thus it's redundant to have both these lists checked
@gorhill I love yourextension, thanks. Just a question: if I use Fanboy Annoyance I can see 12.000 entries, if I use Fanboy Annoyance + Fanboy Social the number in Annoyance decrease, so i think in case of double items your great extension simply don't consider the same filter 2 times, I'm right? If so is another great reason for using it, so user can add some list without study what that list include, your extension does the job for us Update: I saw your reply in a previous page that solve my question: "It's zero because all the filters in it were already parsed and enforced, because other lists contains portions of the same filters. uBlock tries to detect and not load duplicate filters. I knew Fanboy Ultimate was redundant to the ones already in there, but so many users use it that I figured I should include it because it's familiar." Thanks really a must have extension in chrome
I have disabled the pattern filters in HttpSwitchboard and have enabled those µBlock filters as per gorhill's screenshot (which includes Fanboy's Social Blocking List). Strange then, that when denying "b.static.ak.fbcdn.net" in HttpSwitchboard plus running µBlock, the facebook button placeholder is still visible HERE If I take the Adblock Plus filters:- ###button_facebook ||b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/zB6N8/hash/* and stick them in µBlock, the page is clean i.e. no placeholder for the gif image. Something else, updating in µBlock doesn't update this filter:- assets/ublock/filters.txt New version available Otherwise all is well.
Ocky, I can't see the facebook button on that site. However, I'm right now testing µBlock 0.3.0.0-rc0 where Raymond made changes regarding the used API. With older versions I also saw some leftovers on some sites but no longer with the new version.
Damn, that's too bad. Having this puppy on FF could very well make serious headlines. (And a serious signal to the ABP-developers(-marketeers) that they better lower the tooting on their horn)
Currently the expected behavior for versions prior to 0.3.0.0. HTTPSB doesn't support collapsing of blocked elements, and uBlock doesn't see the requests that were blocked by HTTPSB. This will change with v0.3.0.0 (which I will publish today I guess), as now uBlock will be able to see all the requests, including those that were blocked by HTTPSB, and thus will be able to collapse the blocked elements (a feature not found in HTTPSB). Ok I just checked and I see I forgot to update the checksums, so the file is downloaded and discarded because uBlock sees the file as corrupted.
I found that enabling "Fanboy's Anti-Facebook" which I had previously not enabled (all others per gorhill's screenshot were enabled), solved the conundrum. Loaded the unpacked version 0.3.0.0-rc0 and it is perfectly stable here. Thanks gorhill and tlu.
I use 'poper blocker' separately anyway. I never see pop ups. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/poper-blocker/bkkbcggnhapdmkeljlodobbkopceiche
uBlock does have popup blocker now. If you are using a uBlock, then no need for another extension to block pop-ups...
Well just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, the popup blocker in uBlock works according to the filters. So if there is no filter for a popup, it won't be prevented from opening.
I had seen that after I posted that. I'm surfing right now with poper blocked disabled and its been pretty quiet on the popup front with ublock by itself. Very impressive.
New ver 0.3.0.2 is OK. Before: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...r-chrome-chromium.356427/page-31#post-2392811 After: TH. My setting uBlock: HTTPSB:
On a regular basis I check to see whether some "malware" extensions are of any use. Older blocking tests of testing services showed that it was a numbers game (with Ms and Chrome leading the pack of AV's and Avast and Bitdefender leading the AV's). In the past bitdefender's traffic light was the only which blocked an entry which was allowed by chrome. Raymond also did some testing after my first post and confirmed that there was not much blocked. Today I tried the new Avira beta extension and after the first malware entries being blocked by Chrome's safe browsing feature, AVira Browser Safety started to kick-in on a regular base. So my testing was not was wrong: but my conclusion was, so J_L, I stand corrected on this.