µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

And in Chrome

 

In my opinion, Mr. Hill is doing something wrong in uBlock Origin in seeking greater compatibility with AdGuard lists.
There are errors in cosmetic filtering in UBO that do not occur with AdGuard MV3.
I am forced to abandon the AdGuard - Cookie Notices list to use (but would not want to) EasyList - Cookie Notices.

P.S. This problem cannot be verified in Firefox because the extension is not updated to the latest version.

 

can you give us an example, or list, please?
i already use 1.51.0 in firefox, but no clue where to read.

what i consider is that adguard works a bit different, also in view to the MV3 extension. so eg the easylist is for both but throws here 8 errors (for pages i dont visit). i am sure that such entries can be written compatible for uBo.

 

I see only one error in AG Cookie Notices in uBO 1.51.0 (MS Edge) and in uBO 1.50.0 (FF).

 

Yes, also here. But I use Easylist minified with only one error.

 

Yes.
In this website,related to the photos,you can see well that UBO 1.51 (+ AG Cookie Notices) works badly:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/152486#issuecomment-1575551347

 

The error is in the failure to display the content of the web page I use as a test.
It is possible to assume that other web pages have similar problems.

 

So I'm trying out NextDNS, using it in combination with uBlockO. I have several Blocklists enabled under the Privacy tab of NextDNS. I guess this means I can use just a limited number of filters in uBO, maybe just the defaults will suffuce? Looking for advice if anyone can offer. Thanks!

 

All DNS-level filter lists will be inefficient in cosmetic filtering.
You have to evaluate what is the purpose you seek in this symbiosis.

I personally insert some filter lists (OISD full) that have too many rules to be inserted efficiently (in my opinion) in UBO.
Or filter lists that provide me with basic protection when in some rare cases I am forced, due to lack of time, to momentarily disable the extension.
Or filter lists that harmonize with the filter lists in the various extensions (UBO Lite,AdGuard MV3,UBO).

 

as yuki mentioned uBo only covers the dialog, but do not enable scrolling which is disabled by a script. this is not only related to the hamster. if adguard resolves this it uses additional css - see yuki.

what i can tell you from here - adguard with the given lists is not able to remove the cookie consent, but uBo (mv2) can do with my used lists, and retain the scrollbar. where adguard MV3 fails my consent extensions take over. in this case Consent-o-matic does it job. (browser= current edge)

btw same for uBo in firefox.

 

With AdGuard MV3 everything works perfectly.
To do the test well, however, you have to close and reopen the browser after you have used UBO 1.51.0.

UBO 1.51.0

 

you have to tell about your used lists in adguard mv3 and ublock, sorry, no other way. at least your lists in uBo are not sufficient

Code:

  "selectedFilterLists": [
    "user-filters",
    "ublock-filters",
    "ublock-badware",
    "ublock-privacy",
    "ublock-quick-fixes",
    "ublock-unbreak",
    "easylist",
    "adguard-cookies",
    "adguard-mobile-app-banners",
    "adguard-social",
    "adguard-widgets",
    "easylist-chat",
    "fanboy-cookiemonster",
    "easylist-newsletters",
    "fanboy-social",
    "ublock-annoyances",
    "DEU-0",
    "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DandelionSprout/adfilt/master/LegitimateURLShortener.txt",
    "https://adguard.com/en/filter-rules.html?id=15",
    "https://hostfiles.frogeye.fr/firstparty-only-trackers-hosts.txt",
    "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hoshsadiq/adblock-nocoin-list/master/nocoin.txt",
    "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IDKwhattoputhere/uBlock-Filters-Plus/master/uBlock-Filters-Plus.txt"
  ],

erm, sorry, had a new test with adguard and now i dont have a consent dialog and scrollbar is enabled. strange.

adguard has no logger i suppose?

another edit: uBo (mv2) is doing a faster job than adguard (mv3)

 

The problem doesn't change with my filter lists.

The problem is due to the new version of UBO 1.51.0 which has more integration with AG filter lists.
This greater integration needs to be fine-tuned better by the developer.
Currently some websites with cookie consent may have problems.

Other problems cannot be ruled out,if users use many AG filter lists in UBO.

Good evening.

 

please try the lists i gave you and report again.

 

It is not my priority.
I have already identified the offending filter list.
Sorry.

 

I noted that you are using NextDNS in combination with browser uBO ad blocking, so I was both inspired and intrigued to try the same. I guess I'm just looking to block as much as possible at the dns level, and let uBO get what NextDNS misses. As of now I've enabled only the default lists in uBO, so I will see how effective this combination is. You probably know my ad blocking needs are not overly complex, so I think this combination might be suitable for me, but maybe it could be improved.

 

your comparison is defective in a lot of manners.

you have stated that you use additional lists:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/adguard-mv3-extension.448887/page-4#post-3144646

the major issue for the given link is that you concerns ublock and not adguard. if you use adguard lists in ublock and ublock fails its not up on adguard team more ublock. and its not your turn to blame @gorhill instead reporting an ublock issues- did you? if yes, where is the link?

collection all infos from that issue for adguard:

the reported issues is nearly 2 month ago, and the original post was a feedback through extension or app and concern "AdGuard for Mac". and as far i remember you are using windows as your screenshot show up.

your personal conclusion is very personal. no origin adguard settings, and no origin uBo settings. the next major issue on your comparison is that adguard for mac is an app, a reduced app. Apps on macos are very reduced in comparison to the extension or the premium build for android. so you compare apples and oranges.

 

uBlock Origin has prevented the following page from loading:

https://p.liadm.com/click?s=887419&..._fpi=bf719b866c77--01h3qk26zdsb8j7pej8zpkk7nb

Because of the following filter:

||liadm.com^

Found in:

• AdGuard – Ads
• EasyList
• EasyPrivacy
• Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list

 

for reason - its a doubtfully selling plattform
https://better.fyi/trackers/liadm.com/

 

I decide it and not you to open an issue.
And I have already decided not to open it.

My conclusions are my business.
If you don't want to follow them you are free not to.

Advice.

If something bothers you try to solve the problem yourself.
Study if you don't know how.
Don't expect others to do the work for you.

Period.

 

at least it was you to compare ubo mv2 and adguard mv3 which are neither nor comparable. i just followed whats behind, and again you posted some fud. if you need a personal fight against gorhill because of adguard and its lower engagement for mv3 then please do it elsewhere and dont bother this forum. or go github/ublock and insert an issue he can work on. better focus on ublock help instead useless comparisons.

 

Can you make it out that UBO v.1.50 does not have this problem compared to UBO v.1.51.0?
My reference to AGMV3 is just to cite an example where the default AG filter lists work just as well as the corresponding filter lists in UBO v.1.50.

Can you understand this difference?

I repeat you open an issue.
Is it so difficult for you?

And then enough of your inconclusive polemics.

 

Google engineers want to introduce DRMs for web pages, making ad-blocking near-impossible in the browser.

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity

Have a look at the comments here...

 

Those comments... a good read.

 

I changed my mind and opened a issue.
My daughter knows every trick to change my mind.
It is the classic (rare) exception that confirms the rule:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/fa489fdb87fa0a2ebfa92a6bc2245beb65527d3a

Corrected issue since UBO v.1.51.1b2.