Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The iOS 9 Content Blocker thread
- Thread starter thatJohann
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Well that is dumb, but what can you do? I don't have a Mac either. I'll just suffer the advertisements.
@chrismatic
Got a wierd question - sent you the picture via twitter too. When I use only adblock multi my special page m.cuidad.com.ar doesn't show text saying e-planning.net ad, as soon as I turn on purify too its there again. Only using Purify shows them too - and idea?
https://twitter.com/tosla/status/649317363859460096/photo/1
Got a wierd question - sent you the picture via twitter too. When I use only adblock multi my special page m.cuidad.com.ar doesn't show text saying e-planning.net ad, as soon as I turn on purify too its there again. Only using Purify shows them too - and idea?
https://twitter.com/tosla/status/649317363859460096/photo/1
That is pretty odd — I'm guessing Safari only uses one set of the hiding rules. Try turning them both off, turn on Purify, then the other one, and see if that seems to work.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking about — the fix to the aforementioned problem?
(Apologies again if I'm missing something).
No. As soon as I turn on purify i get those texts again. Opens incredibly fast but the texts are there. Really wierd.
One more:
Yo gonna do testflight betas?
One more:
Yo gonna do testflight betas?
I read Ben's latest content reviews post. And in my opinion, he is very biased towards Adamant. I also think his bar chart is meaningless (for all intent and purposes).
1) He doesn't use a control in his supposed upscale testing.
2) He refuses to disclose the website testing list.
3) He speaks of content blocking speed as if it wasn't relative, which it is, due to many variables.
Like his previous reviews, he seems to be all hung up on which content blocker is supposedly the fastest. Speed is not the most important factor, in my opinion.
All Cory did (the developer of Adamant) was tweak the blocking list and removed the in app upgrade feature. I don't consider either of those two things major upgrades, as happened with Purify ver. 1.1. As such, I don't think the app warrants a review update at this point in time.
He is asking what you have planned for Purify moving forward, in regards to features.
Christamatic
Gonna have to kill those texts with Purify-)
For sure. Sorry about it.
Slated for the next version of Purify:
- Separating the social and comment toggles
- Cookie-warning blocking option (in consideration: this might be made to be part of the "Ads and Tracking" option instead of a separate one — doesn't seem like anyone wants to see those cookie warnings; thoughts/feedback?)
- 3D Touch support
- Intelligent visual rule creator — so you can visually choose things to block from a page you're browsing, and Purify will automatically create the appropriate rules for you
- Instant block-list updates from the backend neural network to everyone running the app.
Yea, that feature sounds familiar.The rule creator sounds simply awesome!
If you need a beta tester, I'm willing.
I like the direction Purify is headed.
I am interested in beta-testing as well.
https://brooksreview.net/2015/09/update-334_71/
Disclosure: A few people have comment that both the maker of Adamant and I work at the same company. This is true, however Adamant is not a MartianCraft product. I also stake my reputation on the fact that these numbers have not been skewed in favor of any one blocker over the other.
1blocker ftw!
?
That was explained earlier. He stopped publishing the list so the developers cannot cheat by tuning their blocklists specifically to perform well in his benchmark (Volkswagen Diesel style
).I agree, but it seems a lot of the discussion here and over in your review thread is primarily about (perceived) speed too ...
Well, the blocklist determines how well a blocker works, so a list update can make a big difference, especially now in the early days as devs learn how to optimize their lists to work well with the Safari content blocker system.
Nice of you to join us, Ben.https://brooksreview.net/2015/09/update-334_71/
Disclosure: A few people have comment that both the maker of Adamant and I work at the same company. This is true, however Adamant is not a MartianCraft product. I also stake my reputation on the fact that these numbers have not been skewed in favor of any one blocker over the other.
1blocker ftw!
I have 1Blocker and there are a lot of things I like about it.
I know you like it but, there are many here, who aren't interested in tweaking the settings all the time, or building their own custom rules. As such, 1Blocker may not be the best fit for their needs and ability.
I agree, that there does seem to be a lot of people here focused a lot on the speed aspect of the content blockers. And when one gets myopic in one's thinking, a lot of other important factors and considerations often get missed. And it is that aspect that Ben focuses on too much, in my opinion.?
That was explained earlier. He stopped publishing the list so the developers cannot cheat by tuning their blocklists specifically to perform well in his benchmark (Volkswagen Diesel style
I agree, but it seems a lot of the discussion here and over in your review thread is primarily about (perceived) speed too ...
Well, the blocklist determines how well a blocker works, so a list update can make a big difference, especially now in the early days as devs learn how to optimize their lists to work well with the Safari content blocker system.
In regards to the site names being withheld, I think that is a bit overboard, especially when touting a relative subject as speed. In my opinion, letting developers know of problems with website display and rendering helps us all. And withholding the site names so the speed test aren't skewed (when they are flawed from the start) doesn't send the right kind of message, in my opinion.
I get that Ben is catering to a different niche group than me, and that is fine. He and I go about things differently.
He has an issue with Crystal and their new ad scheme, but he has no issue reviewing a product by a co-worker. Conflict of interest in ad blocking, a big no-no in his book. Conflict of interest in his review, a big yes-yes in his book.
Whether he worked with the developer of Adamant or not didn't bother me. I just think he showed some bias in his review. Others may disagree with me, and that is fine.
I don't want the thread to become some kind of Ben versus BGG debate or contest about reviews. I have nothing against Ben. I disagree with his focus and some of his presentation. I am sure many could say the same about me.
The main purpose of my reply to the one asking for a follow-up review, was to state that I didn't think a major update had been implemented with Adamant. It was also to show that reviews (by anyone) are not something one should hang his or her hat on. They can be used a peripheral tools (such as they are). They should not replace one doing one's own research and testing, especially when one is considering making a purchase. In my opinion, too many people get hung up on numbers and look to specific sites or people to tell them that they should or shouldn't do, or whether or not a product or app is good. And if people aren't careful, they can miss out on good apps, by being lazy or relying on someone else's opinion more than they should.
Well, I guess this is in part because speed is one of the things that are easy to measure. A tester can only use a limited amount of sites, so getting a truly representative sample of the "blocking power" is difficult. What remains are speed and customization options.
One of the most important aspects IMO hasn't been addressed at all so far: How well does a blocker stop invisible trackers? Many devs will focus on the obvious results, so it's possible that some blockers let more trackers through than they should. It's difficult but not impossible to test (e.g. one could set up an HTTP proxy or use Wireshark to see if there are still requests going out for well known trackers).