µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

AG lists also have errors.
I made 2 error reports and only thanks to Yuki2718 one was resolved relatively quickly.
I prefer to use the list with the least number of rules precisely to avoid these errors.

 

ar you sure? did you have a look into adguard mv3 extension? the "filter_##.txt" files contain a lot of cosmetic rules -> css

 

Yes, you're right. AG experimental MV3 extension has some cosmetic filtering (about 5000 rules), but on a rather complicated way. It uses a so called service worker that acts some time after a page is loaded. So it will not speed up browsing.

 

You guys are enormously sophisticated with absolute granular points and coverage.
Thanks for unlocking your vast storehouse of knowledge and not like weekend fisherman who brag about the big one that got away. It's a super effort that's poured into it and the research is pinpoint!

 

yes, you are right.
currently still not working on firefox 116 nightly, due service worker.

 

Gorhill has decided to add more filter annoyances in uBlock Origin Lite as well.

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/4ddfb3f2789d8fe48b62886af74184262c05d29b

It is difficult to change one's opinion,but intelligent people,are distinguished by this very ability.

I hope not to be disliked by some developers.
My only goal is to further improve softwares and extensions for the good of all.

 

I see some overlap in the annoyances pane so which of below filters are better to use?
Cookie notices: Adguard or EasyList
Other annoyances: Adguard or EasyList
Social media/widgets: Adguard or EasyList

 

I also use this list of filters in UBO so I would recommend that you use,when available,AdGuard - Cookies Notices.

This list has already been updated by Yuki2718 for the problem of incorrect website display as reported by me:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/commit/fd9f413ef4e3e7890526131023441ed46e79d89e

These extended lists are due to this reason:

This fisherman as you can see opened issue#5:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-issues/issues/5#issuecomment-1585718664

 

Hi Sampei Nihira,
What exactly were you talking about? That's very much unclear to me.
And why would some developers dislike you? You seem to me a likable person. Don't worry.

 

@Sampei Nihira OK, thx! I enabled all Adguard annoyances related filters.

 

I don't think I come across as sympathetic if I ask for a feature that is initially denied and then granted.

As is the advice to report a filter problem.
In my opinion it is not trivial and easy to solve as Yuki2718 also wrote.
It will be trivial for him that he can take direct action to solve the problem.

 

Hi to all.
Can any forum member bring to attention an example of a website where the use of an annoyance filter list is required in addition to a filter list that blocks cookie consent?
TH.

 

Maybe a silly question but how do I know?

 

It depends on the websites you usually visit.
It also depends on your tolerance for annoyance.
I for one am not bothered by the various Facebook buttons....

But I can't stand the cookie consent.
So I just use this list of filter annoyances.

 

uBlock Origin 1.50.0 is now available on Firefox.

 

its highly possible that not
either it's a cosmetic filter, or an injected script to perform auto confirm (like consent o matic or consent blocker).

 

uBOLite_1.0.23.6136 available on the CWS:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/uBOLite_1.0.23.6136

This MV3 version is no longer experimental.

Noteworthy is the improvement in the efficiency of filter annoyances:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/4ddfb3f2789d8fe48b62886af74184262c05d29b



I think it is time to open a separate thread for UBO Lite,and I hope some forum member will accommodate my request.

 

Do you think it has improved enough to achieve the same filtering efficiency as the original uBlock?

 

At the level of cosmetic filtering, it has improved greatly.
Partly thanks to this fisherman.

 

Good to know, both things

 

I opened this issue:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/75

P.S.

Issue already closed.
Unable to not use Firefox the original CNAME list always has the usual 57 rules
It is unlikely that the recommended "AdGuard Tracking Protection" filter list ( about 44,000 rules) will succeed in blocking all CNAME trackers in a Chromium-based browser.

 

Why not blocking on DNS level?

 

This is actually largely irrelevant as uBO de-duplicates identical filters:

 

@summerheat Thanks, in other words uBlock can handle identical filters without any negative performance impact, right?

 

With NextDNS, I enabled CNAME blocking.
But I have a Hamletic doubt.
If you see the original CNAME NextDNS list you will notice that it has 35 rules:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nextdns/cname-cloaking-blocklist/master/domains

The Original CNAME AdGuard one has 57 rules.

57-35 = 22

I suspect that the CNAME NextDNS block is less strict than the AdGuard one.