[wp-testers] TinyMCE - AdBlock Collision

[Roy Schestowitz]

Hi Andy, Robert,

_____/ On Tue 06 Dec 2005 19:42:27 GMT, [Andy Skelton] wrote : \_____

> On 12/6/05, Roy Schestowitz <wp-lowtraffic at schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> There  are actually a number of selectors that match "advanced". By stick-
>> ing to the word "advanced", you leave yourself with 3 letters that precede
>> common advertisement graphics. Changing these in AdBlock as to prevent the
>> collision  would  significantly reduce its effectiveness, i.e. weaken  the
>> success rate.
>
> Yes, this is true. However, I quite honestly don't give a damn about
> whether you have to look at 2% of the ads out there instead of 1%.
> You, the user, are purposefully breaking your own browser. Given the
> billions of web sites out there, there are probably millions that
> serve non-ad images from a subdirectory called "advanced." Certainly
> any site using TinyMCE with the default theme (advanced) will be
> affected. The source of this too-liberal selector is ultimately
> responsible and should be responsive to feedback, especially if it
> comes from more than one person.


I couldn't agree more with you. Please don't perceive in me a person who
stubbornly suggests that AdBlock gets accommodated. I just know that 
some users
will innocently (or quite conversely -- deservedly) be affected.


> Now that it is clear to you how strongly I feel about pandering to the
> "I can't be bothered to look at advertisements" crowd by considering
> all words beginning with "adv" off-limits in URLs, I will concede that
> I do not have control over the WordPress codebase, I do not have
> commit rights, and I am not the only person capable of creating
> patches for the core. This is OSS and I am merely a contributor. All I
> can do is what I think is the right thing, which involves contacting
> the source of the problem to effect a proper resolution.
>
> I hope nothing in this email hurts anybody's feelings.


Not at all. I guess this so-called 'bug' becomes somewhat of a political
question, so whichever solution (or just path) gets chosen, someone will be
dissatisfied with it.


_____/ On Tue 06 Dec 2005 20:39:31 GMT, [Robert Deaton] wrote : \_____

> On 12/6/05, Roy Schestowitz <wp-lowtraffic at schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Choosing to ignore AdBlock is risky. That'd be an (admittedly poor) equiv-
>> alent  of  Firefox ignoring <bgsound> because it's not  standardised.  The
>> newsgroups are filled with users who whine about Firefox, which refuses to
>> play some silly tune in their Web page.
>
> This is really a terrible analogy. Newsgroups are also filled with
> people who complain that IE does not support a whole host of features
> supported in multiple other browsers in the first place, but here is
> not the place to argue that. The lesson here is that we should not be
> adapting to something that you purposely broke. Reguardless of your
> opinion, the fact remains that adblock breaks the web, refusing to
> display images or other bits of code that would normally be displayed,
> and we should not try to work around something you broke.
>
> Instead, let the Adblock devs fix it.
>
> Here is the offending code:
> img[src*="/adv"]
>
> Here is an easy way to fix it
> img[src*="/advert"]
>
> Still matches adverts, advertise, advertisements, etc. Voila, problem solved.


The problem goes a bit deeper because you must also concede "/ad", 
which is the
very core of AdBlock and probably accounts for [rough guess] 70% of all ads.

Roy