My answers to web store reviews where appropriate
I can't answer to the review in web stores. It's unfortunate as sometimes I could help fix the problem(s), or correct inaccuracies, but the review area is not a forum, so I understand the limitations. Still, I will answer here to those reviews for which I have something meaningful to say.
It tries to inject scripts into Twitter. And I can't seem to find out why it does this. It's the only website I've seen it try to do it with. [1-star rating]
Completely false. uBlock does not inject script tags in web pages, it only injects inline style tags -- to hide DOM elements as per cosmetic filters.
I also responded to this user on Twitter. So far he did not take my offer to investigate his issue by reporting it on GitHub.
Kougeru (AMO, 8 April 2015)
Personal tests show ublock using 1.7 MBs after over 24 hours of my browser running. Adblock Plus was using 15 MBs. That may seem like a big difference, however it is not
This user's findings are flawed, for many reasons.
First, there is no way uBlock consumes only 1.7 MB. I suspect this user used about:addons-memory extension to draw his conclusion.
Problem with about:addons-memory is that it doesn't show all the memory used by an extension. uBlock has two counterparts listed in the about:memory results. The smallest figure is listed under
add-ons. The bigger figure is listed under window-objects > resource://gre-resources/hiddenWindow.html, id=1).
Still, taking this into account, uBlock has a smaller memory footprint than ABP, even when using many more filter lists (something else to take into account).
But the biggest problem with this user's conclusion is that he doesn't take into account the contributed memory footprint to web pages. That memory is not counted as being used by an extension, but rather as being used by web pages thenmselves.
This contributed memory is where ABP suffers the most. ABP will inject 14,000+ CSS rules into every page and into every iframe on a page. The count can easily reach 21,000+ CSS rules if using more than just EasyList (i.e. Fanboy's Social).
On the other hand, uBlock will typically inject from none to a handful of CSS rules.
Prevents web sites from working properly, i.e. Capitol One 360, you can't login with this enabled. [...] If I turn off ALL the filters I can get some things to work. But adding in ANY filters kills things like logging into Capitol One.
Bolded statement is completely false.
EasyPrivacy is the filter list which prevents logging in on Capital One 360. The normal course of action is to report the problem to EasyPrivacy maintainers, and/or to disable that filter list. Once it is disabled, you can log in on Capitol One 360.
Adblock Plus + EasyPrivacy also breaks logging into Capital One 360.
I reported the problem with EasyPrivacy to the maintainers: https://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=21247, so you will benefit the fix with Adblock Plus as well should you enable EasyPrivacy in it.
kreemoweet (mozillazine.org, 17 February 2015)
[...] the µBlock developer has been caught making false statements about his app and other adblockers
Vague claim, no specifics. No answer so far when asked to substantiate claim.
It is very lighweight, but it blocked a ton of stuff that wasn't ads. For example, on Google Translate, it blocked all the alternate translations and said it was blocking 225 ads! [2-star rating]
I just tested Google Translate with µBlock + default filter lists, and I could select alternate translations without any problem.
Trying to reproduce the reported issue, I selected "Fanboy’s Annoyance List" and "Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List": still no issue.
Regarding the high count ("225 ads!"): again, µBlock is not an "ad blocker," it's a blocker, so it will also block according to the filters in EasyPrivacy, and in the current case a lot of network requests to translate.google.* are blocked because of the filter ||google.*/gen204? in EasyPrivacy.
David H. Mason (Chrome store, 10 January 2015)
The author says it should operate identically to adblock. However, there are many, many sites which do not work with µBlock that work fine with adblock. For an example (among many),try the map view at https://nomadlist.io/. For me at leas,t it does not work with µBlock, but it's fine without or with adblock. [1-star rating]
The map view also breaks without any blocker, or with Adblock Plus, and I get it working with µBlock. It looks like it's random, but whatever it is, it's not because of any blocker, since it happened also without any blocker.
No thanks for quickly jumping to baseless conclusions.
Update: Reviewer modified his review on January 11 2015:
[...] For an example (among many),try http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo/613094-x220-max-ram-8gb-16gb.html. For me at least, it does not work with µBlock, but it's fine without or with adblock.
That site is completely broken, and µBlock has nothing to do with this:
That's the same URL, but using Adblock Plus. I get the same result without any blocker. Same result on Firefox. Etc.
I had spend hours upon hours trying to get rid of several adware infections (Obrona, Offers4u, SASA). I tried malware/adware/spyware removers, antivirus scans, uninstall utilities, system resets. This is the only thing that got rid of them for me. A tip: go into the extension options and check off all the filters - there were still a few ad panels that appeared before I did that. [5-star rating]
µBlock's purpose is not to remove existing malware/adware/spyware: It can not do this.
µBlock's purpose is to block outgoing network requests, and collapse DOM elements according to the selected filter lists.
It appears you are merely curing the symptoms, not the disease. I wouldn't want users to get false expectations concerning µBlock.
Brian Flores (Chrome store, 15 December 2014)
Not as lightweight as claimed. Absolutely jams on certain sites, the block counter spiralling and the browser window virtually locked up. Needlessly blocks icons. [2-star rating]
Yes it is as lightweight as claimed. I run detailed benchmarks. You counter with no data + methodology.
Making such claim as "absolutely jams on certain sites" without caring one bit about substantiating this claim by providing a specific URL with which the issue you report could be investigated is highly dubious.
Given the hundreds of hour of work put into this libre software by me and contributors, certainly you could have taken the few seconds necessary to post an actual test case (i.e. a URL) to substantiate your issue, which appears rather specific to you (nothing like this was ever reported before).
And regarding "needlessly blocks icons": µBlock blocks according to the selected third-party filter lists. If you think it blocks too much, disable whatever filter lists you want.
Philip Jordan (Chrome store, 9 December 2014)
This extension is overkill, it seems to do more harm than good. It is over zealous for what is should do. Had to remove it as it was causing more harm than good to my surfing experience. Going back to ABP or just may remove them all together. [2-star rating]
µBlock parses and enforces the same filter syntax as Adblock Plus. So just un-select whatever filter lists which you think is not needed. You can keep only EasyList if you wish (i.e. Adblock Plus' default), this way µBlock will use even less CPU and memory resource.
Some users prefer blocking more than µBlock's default selection of filter lists, some users prefer blocking less than µBlock's default selection of filter lists. The only thing left to do for these users is to select/un-select whatever filter lists they want.
Seiten laden schneller als mit ABP, aber unzuverlässiger und Chrome frisst mehr CPU im leerlauf. [2-star rating]
Google Translate:
Pages load faster than with ABP, but unreliable and Chrome eats more CPU idle in.
"Unreliable" in what sense? No details. µBlock enforces the filters used by ABP.
µBlock doesn't consume more CPU cycle than ABP on idle. The reviewer should post real benchmark data along with methodology, as rigorous as the ones I have been constantly running to develop µBlock. The reviewer's unsubstantiated comment goes counter to the benchmark I've been running.
Please remove the default setting of blocking social media, not every techie is anti-social. [4-star rating]
I see this from a different angle.
"Fanboy's Social Block List" is included in order to reduce privacy-exposure. Using that one filter list has nothing to do with being "anti-social", its useful purpose from µBlock's perspective is of being a privacy-enhancing filter list.
In any case, it's easy to un-select it.
Fast but overly zealous blocker. Blocks much more than ads, like Google Analytics, Google and Facebook-based single sign-ons, etc. I just want an ad blocker. [2-star rating]
Then just un-select all lists except EasyList from the "3rd-party filters" in the dashboard. This way you will end up with an ad blocker which is even leaner and faster.
It filters out too much, so I am constantly having to whitelist things (like instapaper.com?). Great performance, but too twiddly for me. [2-star rating]
µBlock will block according to whatever filter lists are selected. If it blocks too much, remove the filter lists you do not want. If it doesn't block enough, add the filter lists you want. Most filter lists are maintained by 3rd parties, so if one filter list blocks something which you believe should not be blocked, bring the issue to the maintainer(s).
I did try specifically instapaper.com, and it appears it was working just fine. Whatever specific is not working should be brought as an issue.
I personally use more than the default filter lists, and I barely have to whitelist any site, so I am rather skeptical at the claims of "constantly having to whitelist".
Программа врет ! Даже проверил! Она всегда будет показывать на 2-3 единицы больше заблокированных реклам чем к примеру Adblock Потому что в ней специально так сделано , мол смотрите она лучше проверьте даже сами! в главном меню гугл хрома! Продолжаю дальше пользоваться Adblock - он не заменим!!!!
I have no idea what the topic is (the translation by Google Translate is of no help), but the first sentence, "Программа врет !", translates into "The program is lying!" (as per Google Translate).
My answer: No, I am not lying. If I could understand the issue, I am sure I could provide a better answer to counter the unsubstantiated accusation.
[Translation from Russian by a contributor (thanks):]
"The program is lying! I even checked it. It will always show 2-3 extra blocked ads compared to Adblock because it is how it's built, as if saying 'look, it is better, see for yourself!' In the main menu of Google Chrome! I will continue to use Adblock - it cannot be replaced!!!!"
With the same filter lists, µBlock and ABP will block the same amount of network requests. However µBlock comes with more filter lists selected out of the box, so as a result it will block more than ABP with default settings. µBlock has definitely more useful blocking potential than ABP: µBlock support hosts files, dynamic filtering, and also local mirroring helps prevent remote connections to various CDNs.
Now I know why the cpu and memory is so low. This crap doesnt even save ad filters permanently. Even the ones you subscribed to. little ads come back when you refresh the page. Refresh a page again and they are gone? Its like its playing hide and go seek. [2-star rating]
The reason the memory and CPU is low (thanks for noticing) is the code was written from scratch with performance in mind, using benchmarks to drive development. It supports almost 100% of Adblock Plus filter syntax. The behavior your are seeing is not normal. If you could give me a URL where the problem occurs (see it as your contribution to the project), I could investigate.
Going to have to agree with another reviewer - this blocker is great on memory usage, but blocks many other fields (i.e. my insurance company's login fields, the Target.com search box). [...] [4-star rating]
Just to highlight how important it is to be specific when something doesn't work... Here I am given something specific: "blocks [...] the Target.com search box". So now I can investigate. Well, the problem exists also with Adblock Plus, as the issue is caused by a filter in EasyPrivacy. Thus to workaround that filter which break target.com, I created an exception filter to cancel the one causing problem in EasyPrivacy.
µBlock has no control over EasyList, EasyPrivacy, these are hosted on Adblock Plus server.
This is a very good blocker that needs refinement. It blocks too many non-ad fields, such as blanks to enter passwords and usernames. This app could be the best with tweaks, but AdBlock Plus remains the reference standard. [4-star rating]
µBlock enforces Adblock Plus's EasyList and EasyPrivacy, so if µBlock blocks more stuff than Adblock Plus with the same filter lists (EasyList + EasyPrivacy, as per EFF's advice), then this is a bug and it should be reported with appropriate details so that I can reproduce it, investigate it and fix it. I can't fix things which I am not aware are broken.
При запуске в коде страницы появляется вставка на какой то сайт hxxp://www.faceporn.net/free
<style id="ublock-preload-1ae7a5f130fc79b4fdb8a4272d9426b5">[href^="http://www.faceporn.net/free?"] {display:none !important;}</style>[1-star rating]
Google translate:
When you run the code page appears insert on what that's hxxp://www.faceporn.net/free
<style id="ublock-preload-1ae7a5f130fc79b4fdb8a4272d9426b5">[href^="http://www.faceporn.net/free?"] {display:none! important;}</style>
See issue #161. The following filter is in EasyList:
##a[href^="http://www.faceporn.net/free?"]
The purpose of this filter is to remove links to www.faceporn.net from a web page.
High generic filters are the most challenging to implement performance-wise. µBlock internally classifies high generic filters into three sub-categories, high-low, high-medium and high-high generic. The filter above is classified internally by µBlock as a high-medium generic filter.
High-medium generic filters are implemented as follow: All the high-medium generic filters which matches the 8 first characters of the URL of a link on a web page will be seen as relevant to the web page and thus a CSS selector based on these filters will be injected in the web page, in order to hide the unwanted links. Now the above filter, as per implementation happens to match the ubiquitous links to WWW.FACEbook.com, and thus will be inserted as a CSS selector whenever links to Facebook are found on a web page.
Note that Adblock Plus also injects a[href^="http://www.faceporn.net/free?"] in every page, but unlike µBlock, it is inserted in every page unconditionally, while µBlock tries as much as possible for performance-purpose to inject it only where it may be needed.
经常性的导致网页net::ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT 换回ADB [3-star rating]
Google translate:
Frequent causes web
net::ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENTExchange ADB
It's what is logged in the dev console when net requests are blocked. This is actually a good thing, this proves the extension does what it says it does -- blocking.
Adblock Plus will also causes net::ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT to be logged for each net request it blocks, it's no different.
At the start, this did what I wanted it to. I unfortunately have some adware on my laptop, which I can't get rid of and is annoying. This blocker stopped the adware doing anything on Chrome, but the other day it just stopped working. I uninstalled and reinstalled it and installed several other blockers, however none do what I want. This is just a slightly lighter version of other adblockers. [1-star rating]
Sorry about your adware/malware. µBlock is a blocker, it's purpose is not to scan and clean your PC. It makes no sense to expect µBlock to do so. You will have to fix your adware/malware problem with a proper tool, blaming µBlock won't fix your real problem.
It's ok but there better ones out there. [1-star rating]
Ok. I am willing to work to improve it though. But I do realize that regardless how I try to make it better, there will always be people ready to rate as low as possible. I mean some people disliked this, or this, so an uninspiring computer tool which will be remembered by nobody in some near future is orders of magnitude more likely to be completely thumbed down.
Scrambles several websites I visit: Star-Telegram comment section in particular, slows down page loading, and the developer is an unknown. Uninstalled. [1-star rating]
The problem with the comment section at Star-Telegram is due to the use of EasyPrivacy list. I found the problem also occurs with Adblock Plus if EasyPrivacy is checked. (test page where I spotted the problem.)
June 28: Found that problem is that http://media.star-telegram.com/mistats/sites/dfw/startelegram.js is being filtered by /mistats/* in EasyPrivacy. @@||media.star-telegram.com/mistats/sites/dfw/startelegram.js^$domain=star-telegram.com has been added to the project's own filters to fix the problem.