Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AdFlush

dl.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: AdFlush

#21

Post by bluish29 »

rgrmrts wrote: post #18
tjpnz wrote: post #11

I use a combination of UBO, PiHole and AdGuard on my mobile devices. Can't say I've seen an ad in the last year. Is this trying to solve an existing problem or speculating on where things could go in future?

I’m curious why you’re using 3 separate methods. Do you miss things with just one? AFAIK all 3 use similar block lists and are configurable. I’m building a pi-hole type solution for myself and essentially want all the filtering and blocking to happen at my firewall and not on my client (phone, laptop, tablet).

I think pi-hole (Adguard home) is useful dns level ad blocker which can be used on network/router level. But it is limited, UBO provides you more flexibility to block cosmetics and certain ads that cannot be done via dns. There will be overlap of course but it is worth it. I agree that adguard here seems redundant and UBO itself recommend against using another ad blocker to avoid interference and websites adblock discovery.

However you might end up using

1. pi-hole on router

2. Adguard as device level DNS

3. UBO on Firefox (android only)

It is possible but not recommended and wasteful. 1/2 and 3 is enough.

Re: AdFlush

#22

Post by YmiYugy »

Without comparison to the accuracy of crowed sourced blocklists it's not that valuable. Maybe there is a group of hopelessly overworked blocklist maintainers/contributors, that I'm not aware of. If so, their cries for help don't seem to make the HN front page. From a user perspective, blocking banner ads feels like a basically solved problem. I think the real pain point here is that for large chunks of the web, there is no distinction between ads and content.

Re: AdFlush

#23

Post by tjpnz »

rgrmrts wrote: post #18
tjpnz wrote: post #11

I use a combination of UBO, PiHole and AdGuard on my mobile devices. Can't say I've seen an ad in the last year. Is this trying to solve an existing problem or speculating on where things could go in future?

I’m curious why you’re using 3 separate methods. Do you miss things with just one? AFAIK all 3 use similar block lists and are configurable. I’m building a pi-hole type solution for myself and essentially want all the filtering and blocking to happen at my firewall and not on my client (phone, laptop, tablet).

AdGuard is for things I take off the home network, for example when I'm at work. It's true I could use AdGuard for both scenarios but I do like the additional visibility and configurability Pi-Hole provides.

Re: AdFlush

#24

Post by kmlx »

RamRodification wrote: post #14
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

> only one person has to report an ad for it to go into a crowdsourced list that blocks it for millions of others Is it that easy? Sounds very abusable

yes, one of my clients was hit by this and i was tasked with solving the situation.

i had to create a ticket in a repo explaining why blocking a whole domain instead of a single subdomain was actually pretty bad. they approved it and reverted the change.

finding where exactly i had to open the ticket and what to write was a “down the rabbit hole” experience.

Re: AdFlush

#25

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kmlx wrote: post #24
RamRodification wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only one person has to report an ad for it to go into a crowdsourced list that blocks it for millions of others Is it that easy? Sounds very abusable

yes, one of my clients was hit by this and i was tasked with solving the situation. i had to create a ticket in a repo explaining why blocking a whole domain instead of a single subdomain was actually pretty bad. they approved it and reverted the change. finding where exactly i had to open the ticket and what to write was a “down the rabbit hole” experience.

Domains are cheap, don't serve content on an ad domain maybe?

Sounds like perhaps your task was to ensure a company's ads got through an adblocker?

Re: AdFlush

#26

Post by zikduruqe »

tjpnz wrote: post #23
rgrmrts wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why you’re using 3 separate methods. Do you miss things with just one? AFAIK all 3 use similar block lists and are configurable. I’m building a pi-hole type solution for myself and essentially want all the filtering and blocking to happen at my firewall and not on my client (phone, laptop, tablet).

AdGuard is for things I take off the home network, for example when I'm at work. It's true I could use AdGuard for both scenarios but I do like the additional visibility and configurability Pi-Hole provides.

Try AdGuardHome. https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome

I basically have all my devices use it when I am on my network, and when I am off my network, my Wireguard connection (or Tailscale depending...) uses my home DNS server.

Re: AdFlush

#27

Post by Gud »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

Re: AdFlush

#28

Post by klaussilveira »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

Isn't this the case for a bloom filter (vacuum maybe)? You can have very few rules.

Re: AdFlush

#29

Post by 4ggr0 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
nomilk wrote: post #7

AdFlush (F1 Score: 0.98) seems to do better than some other adblockers: AdGraph (F1 score: 0.93), WebGraph (F1 score: 0.90), and WTAgraph (F1 score: 0.84), but it begs the question: why not compare to the most popular adblockers: uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus etc. I think the authors want to compare apples with apples, so they only compare their algorithm to other adblockers that use algorithms, as opposed to those whi…

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

I guess that's why uBO Lite exists :) I started using it a couple of months ago instead of Ublock Origin, and still haven't seen any ads since.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home

Re: AdFlush

#30

Post by [deleted] »

Gud wrote: post #27
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The filter based adblockers are at risk though, with Google's new extension thingy that - at least a few years ago, I haven't heard from it since - limited the amount of rules. If there's a non-rule based system that is 98% effective then that would circumvent the arbitrary rule limits that Google set.

They day Google starts blocking ad blocking users is the day the exodus starts from Google services.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN