15 Oct
2011
15 Oct
'11
5:57 p.m.
Ray Arachelian wrote:
On 10/13/2011 07:16 PM, Jules Richardson wrote:
Oh yes, I don't disagree there - something like Adblock is *far* less of an
overhead than the ads themselves. But it's still an overhead. If the folks
who provide the ads in the first place appreciated that I'm never going to
buy any product whose ad appears in my browser window, then I wouldn't need
adblock and therefore there wouldn't be any overhead at all ;-)
It's the lesser of two evils - but it'd be nicer if there were no evils at
all :-)
cheers
J.
Keith M wrote:
What's more noticeable? Waiting for 3-4 large bandwidth consuming ads
to load from various places while 1x1 pixel flash and images load from
3-4 other places and various tracking cookies to be set and fetched so
that animated targeted ads can bounce up and down, or processing every
HREF through a filter in memory at CPU speed? I can vouch for Adblock+ and NoScript. Adblock+
is truly great and
truly transparent. You won't even know its there --- you just wont
see any more ads. Manually adding blocks is easy.
Horribly OT, but I keep
wondering about the overhead of that. There
must be some grunt-work involved just to see if a URL matches
something in its block list, however minor. With the enormous list of
sites / domains that it must have to filter these days, that overhead
*might* be noticeable to a user (vs. what it would be like if there
weren't the offending items in the source markup in the first place).