µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Other than for the fact that it's more granular, what is the big different between the standard download version of uBlock and the 'Advanced User' Dynamic Filtering option? And curious about one thing.. out of the box, do they both block all-3rd Party scripts?

 

The difference is nothing more than 1 mouseclick, if you click the + infront of the "requests blocked" string, you're in the advanced user mode, then you can block all 3rd party scripts, but out-of-the-box, afair 3rd party scripts aren't blocked (except if they are in the out-of-the-box default checked filterlists).

 

You will have to tell 'I'm an advanced user' in uBO settings, other than that what DOSawaits told is true.

 

The ScriptKeeper extension will only refresh when you close the extension menu. This way you can make multiple changes.

The default "non expert" GUI doesn't let you do anything. I would prefer a simple GUI like in ScriptKeeper or NoScript, focused on blocking scripts on a global level.

 

You can make multiple changes in uB0, too. How does clicking the reload button differ from closing the extension menu in terms of usability?

I strongly disagree:
1. If you only want to control scripts in the Dynamic Filtering Pane, just leave the other lines as they are. It's as easy as that.
2. The global and local columns are absolutely necessary as this makes uB0 much better than Noscript: If you allow a (3rd-party) domain like, e.g., facebook.com in Noscript, it's allowed everywhere. In uB0 this is only the case if you allow it in the global column. If you allow it in the local column only, it will still be blocked on all other sites. This makes uB0 much more powerful, versatile and privacy-oriented than Noscript.

 

Exactly. This level of granularity is a bonus in ublockO. If one wants it to focus on a global level-only blocking, this can easily be achieved as well, all the while maintaining Static filtering on a Global basis or whatever level the user chooses to apply it to.

 

I dont recommend disabling first party scripts, now days far too many sites need it enabled. You will find yourself whitelisting the majority of sites you visit anyway.

 

Agree. The concept of blocking the resources either local scope or global is very intuitive.

 

1.7.5 rc0 is released.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/versions/

 

Good point, but for some reason it feels annoying having to click on the refresh button.

That's true, sometimes it's very handy if you can block scripts per site. I guess I need to get used to the interface which is a bit more "crowded".

 

@Rasheed187
The thing with uBlock Origin is that, the tasks you do with it are little different to other ad-blockers, once you understand and a get a hold off. You will enjoy its intuitiveness and the way it was designed..

The tasks like
- Picking up elements for cosmetic/net filters through Element Picker - It is more of a similar in line with Browser Dev Tools (Dom Inspector Picker tool)
- Its Universal Logger. Its so powerful, especially the filter the logger entries! And to do postmortem things
- And not the last one, It is has own DOM Inspector, for stubborn cosmetic elements. I didn't get occasion to use it though.

 

An example of how the element picker can wipe clean an annoying element from a web page that the 3rd-party filters won't.

 

I will give you a new example of why I think uBlock is a bit difficult to operate, or at least not that easy to figure out. I want to block scripting on google.nl and google.com, but not globally. The reason is because I prefer how Google search works without the extra features. The problem is that Google Maps also stops working if blocked globally. So how to do this?

 

I guarantee if you understand how Dynamic filtering works as per the Dynamic filtering: quick guide page, you will have no problem arriving at a solution (there are actually a few possible solutions).

The solution could be given to you, but that won't help you going forward.

Just try to think of uBlock as a sort of web scripting firewall, where you have Global rules (2nd column) and Local rules (3rd column). Any filtering you apply Locally will override the Global setting for the specific site you are applying it to.

One hint for you: Ask yourself if you want to block scripting on google.nl and google.com on only a few sites or on the majority of sites. Assuming the latter case, then using the firewall approach, you might think about combining Global and Local filtering for your situation.

 

This is true, I did manage to figure out how to block the vwdservices.com script only on belegger.nl, so not globally. But I want to make it so that Google Maps keeps working, while all scripting is blocked on google.nl and google.com. I have tried it but it really doesn't work, perhaps it's not even possible? The weird thing is that even when I block scripting on google.nl and google.com, it doesn't revert to the basic version, like it does when I use NoScript to block scripts. It's these things that annoy me.

 

@Rasheed187

Ever considered using uMatrix?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/?src=ss

 

Unfortunately it is impossible to block all google-related domains without breaking some functionality on some websites. A good example in my case is with calgarysun.com; I need to use Noop rules on ajax.googleapis.com, google.com, accounts.google.com, and apis.google.com, otherwise I can't play videos on the site. At least, however, Static filtering is enforced with Noop rules, so it's not an all out allow rule.

This is why you might consider Global blocking on google-related domains you don't like, or all of them for that matter, and use Local site-specific rules for where they are needed. Remember that local Noop or Allow rules will override the Global rules for the specific site(s) you apply them to.

Alternatively, to make things easier for yourself, you could relax the rules for these google-related domains that are required for a number of sites by simply using Global Noop rules on them. This will require less micro-managing, but with the caveat that they will be allowed for all sites you visit, regardless whether they are required or not. hope this makes sense.

 

How can I rid myself of the pop-up appearing recently on http://www.bloomberg.com/europe ?
The ...##script:inject(overlay-buster.js) does not succeed here.

 

I think enabling Anti-Adblock Killer | Reek‎ filter in uBlock will do, because I don't get that popup.
Nevermind... when I enable 3rd party scrips I also get that popup

 

Element picker:

 

Thanks gorhill. (When I first tried it I only chose the Bloomberg notification window, not the whole page).

 

By design, it depends where you click -- the solution was still in there, it's just a matter of selecting the proper entry in the list of suggested filters:

See Element picker:

The element picker is a tool to assist in creating filters, it tries to make it easy, but it can't read mind -- only the human knows exactly what it is they want removed from the page.

 

Just a suggestion... Can an option be added to display the 'percentage' of requests blocked instead of the 'number' or requests on the icon? That info would be more interesting to know at a glance than just the number of blocks. Thanks.

 

Thanks for the info. But I think I already know why it doesn't work. I wanted to enable scripts on Google Maps but disable it on google.com. But this can't be done, because Google Maps is not hosted on maps.google.com, it's hosted on google.com/maps. But anyway, I still wonder why Google.com doesn't revert to the basic version when I block first party scripts. So for now I combine NoScript with uBlock and Ghostery, it works just fine.

 

I see your point, but this is the problem with google-related domains, in that one can't disable it in its entirety on all sites because it's so often essential for proper rendering of those sites. Google has done a mighty fine job of embedding itself throughout the Internet - kind of as an "essential service" - to make it impossible to completely avoid it, lest one wants a broken web site