Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidgerard | Hacker News Reader

How's uBlock Origin go with this? (I use it and still don't see ads.)

Beats my why anybody would still use ABP over uBlock Origin. Their "acceptable ads" program is basically a protection racket scheme.

Inertia most likely. ABP was around earlier.

Because as soon as I started using uBlock "Origin", I started seeing more ads and more sites that didn't work at all where they previously worked with ABP.

Because the uBlock "Origin" UI sucks compared to ABP.

Because acceptable ads is easy to turn off with one click.

And because gorhill is a real asshole when you submit an issue. It's now obvious to me why uBlock had all sorts of drama at launch.

The a-hole part is certainly bad if it is true. Can you show some examples?

The "seeing more ads" part can just be the result of having fewer users.

The "seeing more ads" is baseless, I can easily provide cases where it is the opposite, because ABP is vulnerable to the "display: block !important" trick used by many web sites on Chromium-based browsers, is unable to block popunders, does not support script injections, and many other shortcomings. For instance, just try focus.de with EasyList Germany enabled.

I think it's possibly just a case of someone unhappy for whom I declined[1] to take care of their pet issue, so lashing out with vague supposed flaws so as to undermine my work makes him feel better.

1. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues?q=label%3Adeclined+...

> ... so lashing out with vague supposed flaws ...

That's funny. Because the reason I said it was that you close issues without pointing out WHAT item in your huge list of ridiculous guidelines (like "I don't accept pull requests") has been broken. LOL.

It's a real asshole move and if anyone actually reads the list of declined issues they can clearly see that people are annoyed by that.

To just respect the guideline to contributing shouldn't be too much to ask keeping in mind the time and work I happily volunteer to this project.

Given the amount of invalid issues that keep being opened[1], asking me to spend time to detail why issues marked as "invalid" are invalid is to ask me to spend a whole lot of precious free time on not working to improve uBO.

CONTRIBUTING[2] is there to be read and respected. If you disagree with it, best is to not open issues. Countless other people understand why it is needed and respect it, and helps the project get better.

1. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues?q=label%3Ainvalid+i...

2. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.m...

It's ridiculous to think that every single person will interpret your rules the same exact way. That is why it's rude to just close issues without comment.

Furthermore, since the person closing the issue is already quite obviously aware of which rule was broken - how much effort are we haggling over? A couple seconds?

Anyway, as I've said it's clear from reading many of the declined issues that people are annoyed by your behavior. It's also clear that you are annoyed by your users, so I wouldn't say that you "happily" volunteer.

You might wish to rename CONTRIBUTING.md to something like SUBMITTING_ISSUES.md.

In most open source projects, contributing refers to contributing code not opening tickets for issues or requests. Even Github's help documents align with this understanding:

https://github.com/blog/1184-contributing-guidelines

I have never used uBlock or looked at its project pages before now and would have skipped-past CONTRIBUTING.md if I was looking for issue-reporting guidelines. The current title doesn't even tally with the first line of the document. There is also no reference to the appropriate issue-reporting process from README.md.

The link to CONTRIBUTING appears at the top of the issue template when one click the "New issue" button. This the top line which appears when opening a new issue:

> Read first: <https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.m...

Okay. For me it looks like the complaint was unsubstantiated. Thanks for the detailed discussion, gorhill.

And thanks for maintaining uBO. Using it happily since it became a topic on HN.

I've read some of the declined issues and there was always some kind of explanation. Maybe it wasn't very in depth but considering the amount of issues to work through I think that's fine.

In fairness with no changes on my part I'm seeing ads everywhere right now - most notable YouTube video ads. Did something change recently?

A bug was filed with uBlock Origin 2 days ago, but gorhill closed it[1] because it's a filter-related issue, so it needs to be taken up with the respective filter list support site.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1886#issuecomment-2...

One was opened in the proper tracker issue and fixed: <https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/98>.

The blocker makes little difference, other than performance. All the popular extensions use separate filter subscription lists, which you can subscribe to some or all of.

It's those that provide the blocking logic, and which need to be updated to fix this.

For uBlock Origin, it makes a big difference: it has its own custom filter lists which make use of extended filter syntax[1]: resource redirection, script injection, more cosmetic filtering options (through which the FB issue is taken care of), etc.

1. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax

I'm not a fan of ublock origin because it includes the privacy easylist by default which is breaking so many websites. They put anything in there without understanding what they are blocking. So frustrating.

Same here, I see no ads somehow. And if I start seeing them I'll stop using Facebook, after all it is just some kind of RSS reader with built-in dumb comments now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com