@alinescoo

The problem is that people have been 'spoilt' over the years with what has been added to FF, however it's success has resulted it it becoming 'bloated' and slow ...

The 'fine divide' now is to enable Chrome to have the 'major' features/benefits of FF without it too becoming 'bloated' and slow ...

Good trick if you can achieve it ;-)

StevePaul:
You can get bFilter to ignore a site by adding...
NOFILTER http://only2clicks.com/*
...to urls.local under Advanced Configuration
Now no filters get run on any of the pages a only2clicks.
Kinda bugs me tho, I woulda thought I coulda....
ALLOW http://www.websitethumbnail.de/shots/artviperx.php?*
...as their the images getting blocked, but it didnt work

heres an example of whats getting blocked...

Code:

<img src="http://www.websitethumbnail.de/shots/artviperx.php?&url=http://www.google.com&w=218&h=142&q=100&sdx=1024&sdy=768&errImg=http://www.only2clicks.com/img/thumbnail.jpg" name="" width="218" height="142" class="bordergrey" id="" title="Google" alt="Google" />

...so I would have thought that ALLOW would have fixed it?

You can see whats getting blocked by looking at the source of the page with the bFilter on and off. Wish those comments listed what filter killed it, or the log, says what gets filtered but not why.


Michael3185:
thanx for the tut, that bfilter is less confusing than some Ive used

@PAEz

Thanks, I'll give it a whirl ...

All I need now is Michael's AdSweep User Script (don't use US if I can help it - just a me thing !!) as an extension and I'm a happy bunny ...

Theres an extension version at the homepage...
http://adsweep.org/
...looks like someone else has taken it over.

thanks for the update

I think I am going to run a poll on the ad blockers available for Chrome

@PAEz

Yeah, I've got the original version of AdSweep, I read some time ago that someone else was going to take up the maintenance of AdSweep ...

It's Michael's 'cut down' version I want as an Extension ...

@sulasno

Would be interesting to see what results you get ...

Would also be interesting to know whether people actually know the difference between an Ad Blocker and a Hider (I certainly didn't) ...

@StevePaul

actually I was looking forward to a browseraction of ad blockers instead of extensions;
developers would be more keen to develop if they know that there are plenty of users

Would have thought there was a big market there ...

It's certainly the main thing that people seem to be looking to find before they move from FF ...

@StevePaul: Glad it's all working well.

Regarding running from another app, eg., an email link, which bypasses the shortcut and so doesn't 'turn on' the proxy... Someone else pointed out that setting the Registry keys so that any external call will enable things works fine. I've attached my saved keys for Iron on Vista. They may be in the same place for Chrome, etc., as they're for standard document opening commands. Should give you an idea if not, anyway. I now have Iron set to use BFilter only, so I can run bog standard IE when testing ad blocking.

The Only2Clicks thing, according to the BFilter docs should be fixed by putting a filter in with the ALLOW directive. The ALLOW *.flv is there because someone in the BFilter forum said videos were being blocked on some sites, and the author said that'd fix it. I would think that ALLOW http://only2clicks.com, or ALLOW *only2clicks.* would do it. (I'm going to give that speed dial site a try in a few minutes, as Chrome/Iron's ridiculous "let's play catch the thumbnail" is driving me nuts). If the ALLOW directive doesn't do it then there may be a pattern match in the default filters which is blocking it. You can edit the file for that in the program folder, but the settings interface won't let you (perhaps the author thought people might make a mess of it).

@alinescoo: Yes, me too - I love Firefox's extensions. Many of them are so easy and quick to use, and do the job perfectly. Although setting up BFilter and an element hider is a little more time consuming than just installing a couple of extensions, I think Chrome is so good it's worth it. As well as the initial start-up speed, I find it restarts very fast too, and renders as fast in normal use, or quicker, than Firefox Minefield (latest dev). More than that though, is the beauty and simplicity of the interface; no title bar needed, tabs that move more visually and intuitively, a lack of messy menus, and well, just overall charm. I feel that with other browsers I seem to need to pay attention to browser functions more than just using it 'invisibly' if you know what I mean.

I've delved into Opera 10 recently too; what a superb browser. While it's a bit Firefox-ish in ways, and lacks Chrome's simplicity and intuitiveness in use, it has some superb aspects. The menu .ini file can be customised as you wish, to add or remove menus, and set commands for them to run, eg., extensions or external applications. Adding that to Chrome would be easy, so hopefully custom context menus won't be too long in coming, and of course, a stable extension system so programmers can really let loose.