Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Firefox Google Apple

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock 335

Posted by timothy
from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.
MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

Comments Filter:
  • by Bo'Bob'O (95398) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:45AM (#32960608)

    Well, you have to admire that the biggest online advertising corporation on the internet didn't pull out the ad blocking feature on it's own brand of webkit browser. Yes, Google is a corporation like any other, but at least they have a little respect for not pissing it's costumers off. I think a lot of companies in the same position would have made it so their browser ADDED ads.

    • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:50AM (#32960636)

      I suspect it's because Google knows that virtually no one uses AdBlock, and that those who do aren't the sort that tend to click on ads anyway. Same reason they let you opt out of their DoubleClick tracking cookie -- you won't bother.

      • Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.
        • by rvw (755107)

          Whereas people using internet explorer as a rule won't probably care that much , I suspect firefox user in percentage (if not majorly) will care about noscript, adblock. I don't know many people without noscript and/or adblock. No granted , that could be a selection bias here, as I work in IT.

          The people I know that use FF, are mostly friends in IT, or family members for which I install noscript and adblock. But even then, Google won't mind.

      • by Kitkoan (1719118)
        With a little more then 1.1 million users for the Chrome version alone, [google.com] I'm doubting that virtually no one uses AdBlock.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KiloByte (825081)

        I've recently glimpsed the screen of someone who does NOT use AdBlock, and I was shocked.

        A huge animated ad taking 2/3 of the screen, and the rest of the screen was split between a bit of actual content in the lower left corner and another ad in the right half of the space under the big one. And after scrolling down, you had more and more ads. And that's a large, popular site.

        At least around here, anyone who has a friend/coworker with a modicum of technical skills will have AdBlock installed... browsing t

    • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @06:46AM (#32961992)

      no, I think its more down to the type of Ads that are blocked. Block Google adwords? Pointless.

      Block a non-Google flash-based flashing lights and scrolling text and attention-catching beeps, you betcha.

      In other words, adblocking is actually beneficial to Google as it gives Google ads more marketshare (ie by reducing the competition).

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by foniksonik (573572)

        Not true. Google serves up a lot of image and rich media ads. Google reps will tell you that click through rates on image based ads outside of google.com are significantly higher than text ads.

  • Works in Safari too? (Score:4, Informative)

    by rritterson (588983) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:45AM (#32960614)

    The same people (person?) that make Adblock for Chrome also make Adblock for Safari (5.0+) [safariadblock.com] Since the feature was ported from Webkit into Chrome, I wonder if Safari has the same ability.

  • by dlsso (1808390) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:45AM (#32960616)
    A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.
    • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:53AM (#32960648)

      A Slashdot story with impeccable grammar? Something doesn't feel right.

      Maybe the grammer nazi"s intercepted the message...?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MoeDumb (1108389)
        I'll ask Kelsey and get back to you. But seriously... -- Grammar nazi: in pre-Web days they were called editors.
    • by Macka (9388)

      Almost, but not quite. There shouldn't be a comma before "and" in the first sentence. The remainder of the sentence, "may have had the ability for some time", isn't an independent clause.

      The comma before "but" was correct as, "chrome now has resource blocking abilities", is an independent clause.

      Do I get my grammar nazi badge now?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:50AM (#32960634)

    It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads. And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.

    So there is still no Firefox vs. Chrome/Chromium. Firefox still leads, big time, because of this issue.

    I'm rooting for Chrome/Chromium/Webkit to get proper blocking abilities, because it's great otherwise. But until they can do what's necessary to get true blocking, I won't use it.

    • by Zarel (900479) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @02:21AM (#32960736)

      It doesn't catch every single resource -- ad blocking plugins for Chrome admit that it won't catch everything and still has to just hide some ads.

      It looks like the resource blocking not working in some cases is an accepted bug, and thus will be fixed soon.

      And it's not nearly powerful enough for NoScript to work.

      Chrome has that built-in. Go to "Preferences" -> "Under the Hood" -> "Content Settings" -> "JavaScript" -> "Block all". You can also manage per-site blocking from that screen. On websites that use JavaScript, a "JavaScript blocked" icon will appear in the toolbar, and you can click on it and click "Allow JavaScript on this site".

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        I think you could call your option for Noscript vs Chrome convoluted. What makes ns better is that an idiot can use it.

        • by Joe Tie. (567096)
          It's just clicking a checkbox. It's a bit deep in the menu structure, but it's not like noscript just magically appears on someone's firefox install either. You have to send them a link to it, or they have to google it.
      • by warrax_666 (144623) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:03AM (#32960918)

        First, NoScript does much more than just block JavaScript.

        Second, NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain; that means I can enable JavaScript for e.g. forums.bioware.com and deny for e.g. ea.com. When I visit forums.bioware.com it will not load scripts from ea.com and I can still have a snappy experience on forums.bioware.com. (Ea.com is, for some reason, a slow piece of shit.)

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          NoScript makes it possible to restrict JavaScript based on the originating domain

          I love that feature. Even if only because it's fun to see sites that load Javascript from a dozen other sites. It's quite impressive how many ad, social app, tracking, etc. scripts some sites cram into their pages.

  • by lhaeh (463179) * on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @02:47AM (#32960832)

    Looking here [google.com] we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by joost (87285)

      I've asked myself this question too. The funny thing is, I would be very OK with google adwords on the page, just not the slow, obnoxious flash-based ads. So if Google explains that adwords will make a reappearance I would be fine with it. I am not anti-ads, I am anti-eyesore and anti-slow-flash-crap.

      • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @08:08AM (#32962442) Journal

        I am not anti-ads, I am anti-eyesore and anti-slow-flash-crap.

        Well said. I wish there is a way I can state my own ad preferences so that the web sites know what kind of ads I will accept. Like browser sends a string that says, "Will accept text ads, static image ads. No animation, no flash ads, so sound, no pop-ups or pop-unders. Currently in the market for: Digital camera, scuba vacation, college visits"

        I want only the obnoxious advertisers to go out of business. I want to provide a carrot for the sites that are willing to play nice.

    • If they try to disable that Webkit feature after people are used to Chrome ad-blocker, those people will just switch to other browsers, including custom versions of Chromium. Chrome users are tech-savvy, or helped by tech-savvy people, who won't eat it and shut up if they like Adblock. /Firefox user, not adblock user

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @07:55AM (#32962352)

      So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.

      You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.

      If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.

      As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Even if Google could stop it (which they really can't) they wouldn't want to, because you need the nerd vote. I know that I was thinking about dropping Chrome until real ad blocking appeared (still fails on TPB though, and some other sites) and if it went away I'd go back to firefox in a hot second even though it takes twice as long to start and twice as long to load typical pages I actually load.

  • Still waiting for... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman (95493) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:55AM (#32961138) Homepage

    Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

    • by Red_Chaos1 (95148) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @04:39AM (#32961316)

      I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.

      That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.

      I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.

    • there already exist pages that will not load the genuine content until the page actually responds with verification that the ad content has loaded in the browser

      the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"

      if enough people block ads, this will be the norm

      i'm annoyed by intrusive ads and interstitials and articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else, but the publisher needs to make cash to keep

    • by Kijori (897770)

      Absolutely. What I want isn't an ad-blocker, just an "ad-controller"; I don't mind the adverts, I even understand that they're necessary - but I don't want them to completely stop me from doing what I came to do. If they could just load after (or concurrently with) the content instead of before, and not do anything that intercepts my mouse movements or slows my browser to a crawl I would be happy.

      Some website owners don't seem to understand this. I recently emailed armorgames.com to explain that, while I un

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 1s44c (552956)

      Is everyone ever going to make an adblock-alike which, rather than "blocking" ads, just prioritizes them differently so I don't need to wait for fifty ads to load before I can view actual page content? I really don't mind ads. I'm okay with them. I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

      How can you be OK with ads? It's humanly impossible to read text from a screen while 6 flashing ads are begging for attention.

      Before ABP I used to stick post-it's to my screen just to cover them up. Ad blocking software is a big step forward.

    • by markdavis (642305)

      I wouldn't mind ads if they

      1) Didn't slow down the network (AKA, loaded last or at least at the same time)
      2) Didn't take up more than half the screen

      But *MOST IMPORTANTLY*

      3) DON'T CONTAIN *ANY* TYPE OF ANIMATION

      I can't STAND movement on the screen when I am trying to read. It is extremely annoying. That is the #1 reason I block ads.

  • a sad day (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spongman (182339) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @04:22AM (#32961238)

    i hate to sound like Kyle Reese, but this is how it happens:

    July 2010, Apple adds ad-blocking to WebKit.

    it makes its way slowly into most popular web browsers cutting off the revenue stream for content publishers on the internet.

    those publishers make a move onto one of several closed platforms originally designed for mobile platforms.

    after an initial intense fight, a single closed platform dominates. the others fade away.

    internet use drops significantly. only free content is available on it, and the mainstream views it increasingly as a refuge for subversives. most households disconnect.

    April 3rd, 2017: the internet backbone is shut down.

    premium content and visiting traffic moves predominantly to the closed platform.

    • SO you're saying this could be a rebirth call for Compuserve?
    • by elronxenu (117773)

      When does the system become sentient? Looking forward to the day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fumus (1258966)

      I know this is just an attention-seeking post, but I feel compelled to explain one thing. Namely, if you are connected to the Internet, you can host your own content. That's how the Internet works. I pay my ISP for both download and upload speed. Sure, the latter is always a magnitude slower so that the ISP can earn more on "corporate" connections, but I still can host my own website and am not upload amount capped.

      Even if companies stop hosting content because they won't make any money on it, there still w

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Shados (741919)

        Read the terms of services of your ISP carefully. Most (not all, so maybe you're lucky) have a clause with home service that state you cannot use it to host a a full fledged server (with legalese to separate a server in the technical sense from a server the way we talk about it).

        In my case, my ISP goes a step further and blocks port 80 in upload. Obviously can just put the site on another port, but....

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Fumus (1258966)

          I read through it every time they change it and nope, nothing about hosting. The only port they block is 21 (IIRC) to pretend they're fighting spambots.

          What a sad world we live in where ISPs block port 80 to stop home users from hosting websites and home users not boycotting that.

    • by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @09:01AM (#32962884)

      It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.

      It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.

  • What's AdBlock? (Score:3, Informative)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:14AM (#32961480)
    I installed Privoxy. Doesn't matter which browser I use now.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...