Google Chrome Plugins and Themes

I have seen on some page that there is a startup switch -proxy-server but couldn't find any documentation about how it works. Could you try it and see if it works with bFilter?

__________________
WPF tutorials for beginners. Even some N-tier here

see here
http://groups.google.com/group/googl...54fa23f3e0970a

__________________
What version of Chrome are you running?

Well it seems that adding --proxy-server=127.0.0.1:8080 to shortcut makes the use of bFilter. Now we'are talking...

__________________
WPF tutorials for beginners. Even some N-tier here

@alinescoo: I'm curious about this proxy server setting you're doing. I leave BFilter running at startup, and all web applications work fine; browsers, FTP, email, etc. What's your reason for wanting to set it specifically..?

Also, if you set Chrome to use it with --proxy-server, surely that means you need to start BFilter before you can use Chrome, which is another 'complication' as you said..?

I'm letting bFilter run at system start also. Because I use bFilter ONLY with Chrome, I didn't wanted to influence other programs. By setting the proxy only for Chrome not for IE as before, I think things are how they suppose to be.

__________________
WPF tutorials for beginners. Even some N-tier here

Here I attached a bFiterUpdater that updates the user list filter with subscription from RoList+EasyList. The script is taken from here

Please be aware that it will delete all your added filters. So, use for caution. I wonder if there will be any improvements over default filters. This is just for testing easyList filters with bFilter.

Attached Files

bFilterFiltersUpdate.zip (197.9 KB, 66 views)

__________________
WPF tutorials for beginners. Even some N-tier here

@Alinescoo, why bother? BFilter works perfectly well without long filter lists, and adding more and more does three things; 1) it slows it down a little the more the list grows, 2) it makes the list so long it's unreadable (ie., you can't find anything easily), and 3) it wastes your time by keeping you thinking of constant updates.

The easiest way to use BFilter, as I've said before, is not to bother with the easylists, etc. As others have said, when set up with the few filters I suggested, no more ads. But, if you do find an ad that's not blocked, just right-click, inspect element, and then add one new filter. Your list is tiny, the ad blocking excellent, and more importantly you know what's in there.

The reason I suggested BFilter after testing a bunch of proxies is that it's very, very simple. By all means play around and have fun, but why make it more complicated than it needs to be when it works perfectly well?

Yes I agree with you completely. There are still people who think that EasyList is the answer to ad blocking, so that' why I added a way of updating filters, for them. I use the list you provided in other thread and it works fine. I tried the updated list from easyList and I couldn't see any improvement. But, as I said, the updater was for testing only.
Thx for sharing the bFilter information on the forum. I use it and the browser flies.

In another order of thoughts, I suggested to the developers of ChromePlus to integrate a internal proxy in their product similar to bFilter. They are analyzing to see how this would fit, but imagine how great it would be....

__________________
WPF tutorials for beginners. Even some N-tier here

If they added an internal proxy I guess it could work like Firefox/Gecko? I'm still wondering why they're dragging their feet on the whole ad blocking issue, and while I may be wrong, I suspect that someone high up has told the team to leave it as a low priority. As I said elsewhere, they make mountains of money from advertising, so they're not going to want to allow highly effective ad blocking for all users at the click of a button.

Members on forums like this often have more experience or like to experiment, so they're more likely to try a proxy solution like BFilter, Privoxy, etc. Millions of users don't know about such things, or don't want to try it as it seems complicated. From Google's point of view, leaving things as they are now in regard to ad blocking means that only a some thousands of users will be effectively blocking ads. Building in content policy so that millions of people can download Adblock Plus and have ads instantly disappear... I think those with their fingers on the check books would loose sleep over that. But we'll see.

Edit: Oops - just realised you meant ChromePlus, not Google Chrome. If developers of Chromium forks (hehe) add an internal proxy it'd be cool, but then most users will stick with Google Chrome for the regular updates, it being seen by most as the 'main product'. It's all getting a bit complicated, perhaps one of the problems with Open Source applications which are/will be used by millions and forked into different lines of development.

@michael

Just been reading through your thread here on Ad Blocking/(Hiding) and have to say it is an excelent piece ...

In the early days of Chrome, before the advent of AdSweep (AS), I used to use Privoxy, which I know like BFilter is system wide (which I don't have a problem with) ...

I've continued with the use of AS, even though it no longer gets updated, and it has continued to do a reasonable job for me ...

Since your 'article' I'm now going to install BFilter and give it a whirl ...

I noted that you run a 'cut down' version of AS (your own) and wondered why ...

Obviously from your 'point of view' BFilter and AS (cut down) is an ideal combination ...

__________________
"Strive for excellence, not perfection."