Discussion in 'other software & services' started by gorhill, Jun 23, 2014.
When I briefly tried uBO medium mode with 3rd-party frames blocked, so many login pages broke that I reverted to "regular" (easy) mode soon after. The only extra "security" list I use is the curben phishing block list, and have not encountered any problems. I love the element zapper for dealing with "messy" websites.
fyi, element zapper is temporary. it's element picker that creates permanent filters. (see here and here)
did you try disabling brave's built-in ad blocker? might be interfering with ubo.
I don't have any troubles with consent youtube page on youtube but only from google search.
Maybe because my FF is outdated, I running the FF 56 version.
Why? Seems unsafe to me.
U can get like 80% (arbitrary number) of the benefit of ublock origin by just using easy mode with filters. Or u could spend 20 minutes on each site u visit to setup filters. Worth? You decide (I think not).
Absolutely yes. It's mandatory. I use the Picker for things like the push notifications thing (for a permanent block) over at Malwaretips. But for convenience, the Zapper is kind of fun.
The chart in post 5503 answers the question about modes perfectly. Appreciate it. Prob. it will help others too.
I use the Zapper sometimes on sites I don't intend to visit again, or only occasionally.
There are already enough entries in "My Filters".
Totally agree. With the uBlock Annoyances and anti-Facebook filters checked, I feel it's good enough. (If I were extremely worried about 3rd-party tracking, I would use AdGuard DNS with the browser's DoH feature for more blocking with less breakage.)
Trying to get filter entries to under 100,000 again. Is it worth the effort? Remember when 500,000 entries was sort of the norm? Not venturing out too much past the defaults w/maybe 3 imports and 13 User rules so far.
Is anyone using a dedicated URL cleaning filter in uBO?
the only thing brave enabled is the anti fingerpinting
I use "Actually Legitimate URL Shortener Tool"
to Custom Filters.
I use that too! I added it about four days ago. Great, thank you for confirming this is "actually legitimate," lol.
Spoiler: uBO I wuv u :)
In the pc with Windows 10 (without Noscript) I currently have:
49.537 network filters + 32.317 cosmetic filters
for our needs are sufficient.
Yeah, @gorhill recommended it here.
Lol that's weak bro. I don't even have that many filters enabled and I got 125 747 + 68 398
I have Ublock configured in hard mode say from around november last yr use what filters i like and this is how many ad's it has blocked: Blocked since install1.1M
184.541 networkfilters ＋ 132.568 cosmetic filters here, haha.
And Firefox is still blazing fast.
473.832 blocked since install here, but uMatrix (dev build; not maintained any more) catches a lot first.
OK, well so far, 120,000--190,000 network filters is reassuring. I know there were performance benchmarks and huge #s of rules didn't seem to slow anything, but I don't want redundancy and bloat--surely many others don't either.
128,540 network filters ＋ 57,896 cosmetic filters here. I'll try to keep under 175,000/100,000 respectively without compromising effectiveness--unless someone comes up with a miracle list of only 100 rules (right, in one's dreams).
What's the point of so many filters?
In my case with Noscript I get blocking of all trackers and ads in unknown websites that I visit for the first time.
I only have to "worry" about the websites to which I have consented few scripts.
So the task of UBO is reduced to the few websites (a minority compared to the entire web) to which I have allowed few scripts.
And also to very few websites that I visit for the first time that I temporarily consent to the main script of the website.
47.675 network filters ＋ 32.526 cosmetic filters
well then disable "shields" and try again.