I'm concerned that Clikz/Ghostery was the entity performing the research which claims Ghostery drastically outperforms other blockers. Conflict of interest, much?
I'm concerned that Clikz/Ghostery was the entity performing the research which claims Ghostery drastically outperforms other blockers. Conflict of interest, much?
That's a little questionable, but it doesn't matter much which one "won". The overall point wasn't to say "our adblocker is way faster than the others, you should use it" (though naturally they'd...
That's a little questionable, but it doesn't matter much which one "won". The overall point wasn't to say "our adblocker is way faster than the others, you should use it" (though naturally they'd want to highlight that), the point is to show that they're all extremely fast and refute Google's claim that adblocking extensions are slow. Other than Brave parsing EasyList, the differences are all on the scale of milliseconds, nobody's going to able to perceive much difference between them.
Performance was part of the justification that Google was using for planning to restrict them, and they appear to be retreating now, so this study was probably a factor in that.
That article is terrible, it doesn't back the headline with any information. Having read the V3 manifest... I don't see any backtracking. Google still wants to replace editing webrequests with a...
That article is terrible, it doesn't back the headline with any information.
Having read the V3 manifest... I don't see any backtracking. Google still wants to replace editing webrequests with a new API that is limited and controlled by them.
I haven't followed the process enough to know exactly how their statements have changed, but the most important part from the article (and maybe I should just link to it directly instead) is this...
I haven't followed the process enough to know exactly how their statements have changed, but the most important part from the article (and maybe I should just link to it directly instead) is this post that they made yesterday. There are multiple things in there that seem like they're backtracking somewhat from what was initially discussed.
I'd rather have the performance hit from having to run through a loop a few extra times than the performance hit from having to execute a bunch of useless ads.
We will raise the rule limit from the draft 30K value. However, an upper limit is still necessary to ensure performance for users. Block lists have tended to be “push-only”, where new rules are added but obsolete rules are rarely, if ever, removed (external research has shown that 90% of EasyList blocking rules provided no benefit in common blocking scenarios). Having this list continue to grow unbounded is problematic.
I'd rather have the performance hit from having to run through a loop a few extra times than the performance hit from having to execute a bunch of useless ads.
So ghostery was the fastest in a study by ghostery. Hmm.... I think ill stick with ublock origin. Even if it is slower, the numbers are so tiny that it couldnt possibly matter.
So ghostery was the fastest in a study by ghostery. Hmm....
I think ill stick with ublock origin. Even if it is slower, the numbers are so tiny that it couldnt possibly matter.
I'm concerned that Clikz/Ghostery was the entity performing the research which claims Ghostery drastically outperforms other blockers. Conflict of interest, much?
That's a little questionable, but it doesn't matter much which one "won". The overall point wasn't to say "our adblocker is way faster than the others, you should use it" (though naturally they'd want to highlight that), the point is to show that they're all extremely fast and refute Google's claim that adblocking extensions are slow. Other than Brave parsing EasyList, the differences are all on the scale of milliseconds, nobody's going to able to perceive much difference between them.
Performance was part of the justification that Google was using for planning to restrict them, and they appear to be retreating now, so this study was probably a factor in that.
That article is terrible, it doesn't back the headline with any information.
Having read the V3 manifest... I don't see any backtracking. Google still wants to replace editing webrequests with a new API that is limited and controlled by them.
I haven't followed the process enough to know exactly how their statements have changed, but the most important part from the article (and maybe I should just link to it directly instead) is this post that they made yesterday. There are multiple things in there that seem like they're backtracking somewhat from what was initially discussed.
I'd rather have the performance hit from having to run through a loop a few extra times than the performance hit from having to execute a bunch of useless ads.
iirc ghostery spies on you. Which is quite ironic.
I'll take ublock origin and privacy badger instead of the shady as shit ghostery
Why is Ghostery shady? I've only ever used uBlock and I don't plan on changing, but I'm curious why Ghostery isn't loved like the others are.
They collect "anonymous" ad views that they block and who knows what else.
So ghostery was the fastest in a study by ghostery. Hmm....
I think ill stick with ublock origin. Even if it is slower, the numbers are so tiny that it couldnt possibly matter.