Google to punish sites that use intrusive pop-over ads - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MrWhite;50945074]It's not that it's necessarily bad, but Bing does it better. -The back button on Bing's takes you out of a specific selected image and back to the wall of search results, while Google images requires you to click the X button to do that. Bing's search filters aren't hidden behind a deceptive "search tools" button that is right next to a little gear icon that would make you think that [I]that[/I] is the search tools button. [/quote] The google preview is much faster to use in that it doesn't pull up an entirely new webpage to preview the image. [quote] -Bing had filters for transparent images readily available before Google exposed it as a common filter option. -Clicking on the image preview in Bing takes you straight to the source image file, while doing the same in Google takes you to the page that the image is on, requiring either a "right click->view source" or another click or 2 after getting to that page for the source image. [/QUOTE] Its [b]much[/b] faster AND more secure to have images load on Google's servers when searching for images as opposed to pulling them up directly on the list of images. Besides, the full image loads when you click on it so whats the issue? In addition, Google has a "View Image" button that you can just copy the link to. [quote] Are any of these issues extremely serious? Not really. It's more that I can get to what I want just that much quicker with Bing than with Google. I don't really like to recommend Bing because I know that, in general, results just aren't as relevant as Google's, but in this instance I'm able to find what I want usually much faster by using Bing rather than Google.[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to convert anyone; I'm saying that it's what [b]I[/b] prefer. I've done the tests, and I can get to what I want faster with Bing than with Google, and on top of that, Bing loads a page full of images quite a bit faster on my connection than Google does. Sometimes, Google's page doesn't even load half the images, and it'll take forever after I click on them for them to load fully. Still, that's just my personal experience. It feels like you're trying to argue against my preference here, and I realize how jarring it can be to hear that someone favors Bing over Google for something (believe me, I was kinda like "wtf?" when I realized it), but Bing just works better than Google in certain situations for me. Maybe it's different on your connection or for what you use it to do.

I'm just asking for clarity against points that don't make sense in my view.

Alright. Google's preview requires me to move my mouse to a fixed point not at the corner of the screen to return to the list of images, while Bing's preview requires only the back button to be pressed, which is bound to one of my mouse side buttons. This makes it much faster to preview images on Bing in my experience. That's kinda my biggest gripe. the bits about getting to the source image as fast as possible; I've found it more intuitive at a basic level to use Bing to find images than to use Google. Something about how Google loads the images just feels jarring to me, as opposed to the much more natural and fast way Bing seems to load images for me. I can't explain it very well, but searching for the same thing between Bing and Google tells me that I like how Bing performs more. That's all. I'm not trying to say that Bing is objectively better than Google because it very obviously isn't, but I prefer Bing over Google for image searching.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;50947876]Alright. Google's preview requires me to move my mouse to a fixed point not at the corner of the screen to return to the list of images, while Bing's preview requires only the back button to be pressed, which is bound to one of my mouse side buttons. This makes it much faster to preview images on Bing in my experience. That's kinda my biggest gripe.[/QUOTE] That's fair. I don't consider that a problem myself

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;50942903]I would love to know how you did that. Would to care to share with me?[/QUOTE] If you have a router (Note: Not modem/router) capable of flashing third party firmware like [url=http://tomato.groov.pl/]Tomato[/url] on it, you can install [url=http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/script-adblock-not-so-lean.72290]adblock tools[/url] which direct all blacklisted websites to a 1x1 locally hosted gif. Alternatively, you could get a Raspberry Pi and install [url=https://pi-hole.net/]Pi-Hole[/url] on it - just make sure to change the DNS server on your modem/router to point to the Pi. I use a similar setup with my Raspberry Pi where I have Privoxy blocking almost 600,000 sites for me, with some extra scripts I've made up to update lists from almost 30 different sources weekly. Very easy to override sites on a once-off and permanent basis.

Can we outright make video/audio ads that autoplay illegal already?

[QUOTE=redBadger;50943729]Companies complain about adblock programs. But it wouldn't be a problem if ads were non-intrusive. I had an experience with the whole screen ad today on my android device. Not only is it intrusive, but it's laggy as fuck and impossible to hit the X without hitting the ad.[/QUOTE] people using ad blockers are the reason ads have gotten more intrusive, they need more expensive ads to compensate the pop-up era was long over even before adblock was a thing, at that point it was mostly just banner ads

[QUOTE=Eric95;50962013]people using ad blockers are the reason ads have gotten more intrusive, they need more expensive ads to compensate the pop-up era was long over even before adblock was a thing, at that point it was mostly just banner ads[/QUOTE] A fair number of the banner ads were outright scams though. So many sites had a "click here to win x" ad. They were maximum clickbait. And god help you if they played audio.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;50943329]that's why anti-anti-adblock lists exist, but you're dependent entirely on people figuring out how they are detecting it and how it can be tricked.[/QUOTE] [url]https://github.com/Mechazawa/FuckFuckAdblock/commit/14aafc0f0fc89f395e605777d8c2b8ba747ef420[/url]