Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Popular FF add-on AdBlock Plus blocking "Spread Firefox" images
The Firefox Extension Guru blog noticed that -- for some reason -- updates he was making on his web sites weren't displaying for some reason, at least not in Firefox. When loading pages in Chrome he could see the edits. After a little digging, he found the cause: AdBlock Plus had blacklisted the particular element he was adding -- a "Spread Firefox" banner.
Oh, the irony.
Over at the AdBlock forums, one member of the Spreadfirefox.com team checked in and asked to be removed from the blocklist. The response to Mozilla's inquiry is pretty clear cut: they're still ads. From the AdBlock forums:
Moral: if you really want to spread Firefox, make sure you're not using embed codes. Just because AdBlock runs as an FF add-on doesn't mean its developers are treating Mozilla ads differently than anyone else's."Well, as fanboy says, those banners/buttons ARE ads for Firefox after all. When they are embed into another website, they are NOT site functionality but third-party promotion. I'm not going to whitelist them as some people might want to block those (and would wonder why it doesn't work)." [em. added]
Comments
13
Subscribe to commentsfabbazMar 21st 2010 1:08PM
since adblock plus is mostly a firefox plugin: wouldn't a adblock plus user already HAVE firefox installed?!
i can't see how firefox users would be target audience of ads to convince them of using firefox anyway...
ArpitMar 21st 2010 1:29PM
yes, "Spread Firefox" ads are not for Fx users. :)
just a note on FF:
"Mozilla prefers that Firefox be abbreviated as Fx or fx, though it is often abbreviated as FF." (via wikipedia)
JoshMar 21st 2010 2:26PM
that's awesome! lol
imthecavemanMar 21st 2010 2:28PM
Adblock Plus isn't doing anything here. It's the maintainers of the "EasyList" filter subscription.
"Just because AdBlock runs as an FF add-on doesn't mean its developers are treating Mozilla ads differently than anyone else's." - This is just plain wrong: the developers of Adblock Plus and the maintainers of EasyList are not the same people.
AemonyMar 21st 2010 2:57PM
I'm having kinda split feelings related to this situation. While I perfectly understands EasyList's opinion that the banners ARE advertisement I'm also in disagreement because I don't really see them as advertisement.
If an element of any kind showcases products or the like from a third party source AND generates revenue for the owner of the current site when clicked upon I see them as advertisement.
If, however, an element showcases products or the like from a third party source WITHOUT generating revenue for the owner of the current site I have a really hard time seeing the elements as an advertisement.
Seeing them as an advertisement would mean that all cross-site links using images are BAD and would be labeled as advertisement. In no way can I agree with this statement as that would mean that the owner of a website can't even recommend something, using an image, to his visitors without it being labeled as advertisement.
If website owners wants to enlighten his visitors on something (for example that another web browser exists) this should be allowed and not prevented. By preventing it not only does users of ad blockers miss out the ads, but also a thing that the website in fact wants to highlight.
How come Spread Firefox are blocked but not the image on The Million Dollar Homepage (http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/)? This is hypocrisy.
Crome TysnomiGnu32Mar 22nd 2010 4:36AM
"How come Spread Firefox are blocked but not the image on The Million Dollar Homepage (http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/)? This is hypocrisy."
Incorrect. The images on The MDH are not blocked because of the way the image files are named nor is it used as a banner/popup advert on any other site. Therefore aren't caught by the EasyList (keep this in mind) filter used commonly by AdBlock.
fanboyMar 21st 2010 4:49PM
So I see no problems here. "Spread Firefox" are just advertisements for firefox, they use common ad dimensions. As much as we love firefox, those Affiliate websites are still advertising.. advertising firefox.
PeterMar 21st 2010 5:36PM
Correct. An ad is an ad, regardless of the content or the product it is promoting. Getting into blocking ads based on content is a slippery slope.
ALeXMar 21st 2010 5:42PM
I don't get it.... Spread Firefox is not an advertisement, it's more of an "endorsement". I mean, the site owner doesn't get paid for putting up the banner or if a visitor clicks it, right????
It's one thing Google putting up Chrome ads in Youtube and it's another thing for a blogger to put this in his site...
Ntw1103Mar 21st 2010 6:53PM
Isn't it just the filter list you are subscribing to; Easylist?
I don't use easylist, I use another subscription(which blocks many ads which aren't on the Easylist. including yahoo mail ads, hulu ads, and a bunch of other sites.) the problem here isn't AB+, but rather the list.
TaomynMar 22nd 2010 4:09AM
May I ask which filter are you using?
EasyLists also whitelists what in my opinion could be dubious adservers under the pretext that they cause issues with the websites. I'd rather make that decision myself and then whitelist stuff. Those that use Easylist should have a good look at the list before using it - search for @@ in the preferences and you'll see.
Ntw1103Mar 22nd 2010 9:05AM
http://www.adrensoftware.com/tools/abp_blocklist.php
is what I'm using. the list is maintained by friend and myself.
SquareWheelMar 22nd 2010 2:24AM
It is a promotion and thus shouldn't be allowed in the ad-block easylist. Just because you agree with the ad doesn't change that matter.