Hacker News Reader

You are correct - no cookies or any visitor tracking is being used. We only track if the display of an ad is possible. And thanks for reminding me of the screen & window JavaScript variables. They aren't being used at all.

This is the same method I use to check for adblockers on my sites, is there an issue with this approach or?

> open("POST","https://www.adblockanalytics.com/analyze/")

That's gong to cause confirmation bias.

Since you're still relying on trusting an unknown client to run your code and submit your result instead of simply parsing the server logs, you have aren't including anybody - with or without an ad blocker (either of which may include downloading ads.js straight to /dev/null) - who decides not to run that <script> tag.

> www.adblockanalytics.com/analyze/

Time to add another "IN A 0.0.0.0" record to the local resolver.

The JavaScript screen & window variables have been removed.

https://www.adblockanalytics.com/analyze.js

var abaA; if(!document.getElementById('abaA')){ abaA='N'; } else{ abaA='Y'; }

var r=new XMLHttpRequest(); r.open("POST","https://www.adblockanalytics.com/analyze/"); r.setRequestHeader("Content-type","application/x-www-form-urlencoded"); r.send("abaI="+abaI+"&abaA="+abaA);

>Don't see any reason why an ad blocker would block them.

uBlock, for example is not only an ad-blocker but also a privacy enhancer. Maybe some users just don't like to be tracked.

We have no interest in tracking anyone and can't given our implementation. If you checkout our sample report (which is the same one that clients receive) all of the data is highly aggregated:

https://www.adblockanalytics.com/sample/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com