Custom rules for build-in advertising blocker
-
Hello. It would be very good if build-in advertising blocker will support user rules - for example, css-based, like it made in uBlock Origin and some other blocker extensions.
-
@AlexeyB Welcome to the Community. I flagged your thread for moving to the right forum.
Here are a few links for your bookmarks that you may find useful:
-
@AlexeyB Vivaldi uses the same basic format as uBlock Origin and other blockers. Could you give some specific examples of rules that don't work?
-
It's all about writing your own rules without having to upload the subscription list to Internet, all within Vivaldi's Adlocker.
I base on the fact of extension ABP (AdBlock Plus) you can add your custom rules without having an online list with the problems of putting it online, generating the hotlink, updating, etc. (frustrating)
The next image is ABP with some rules I've made. The idea is to transfer this feature to Vivaldi's Adblocker.
Maybe like the extension ContentBlockHelper where's grouped by domains, and can add several rules by each domain, instead one line one rule ...just I drop this idea, who wants may take it
Don't forget to upvoting if like u!
🖥 W10 PRO / 💻 Linux Mint / 📱 Pixel 6a (GrapheneOS w/out GApps)
-
I'd use uBlock Origin as a better model for this. It has extended the ABP filter syntax, for one thing. Important for creation of custom filters is the ability to see what has been blocked, and why it is has been blocked. To that end, uBlock Origin's logger is an essential tool for investigating what is happening, and creating highly targeted filters to change the blocking as desired. For blocking additional things not caught by the extant filters, the element picker & zapper tools are useful, as is the DOM inspector.
For a robust custom filter feature, I would like to see these tools included as part of it. It's also why I wish Vivaldi stuck to its guns and said existing blocking extensions provide broad functionality to solve the problem better than any native blocking functionality in any browser, so they could then focus their resources on parts of the browser which didn't already have fantastic solutions implemented. There's a mountain of work, even with a basic custom filter feature, before Vivaldi's ad & tracker blocking will reach parity with tools like uBlock Origin and uMatrix. I don't predict these will ever be made obsolete.‡
I think mainly they needed to have ad & tracker blocking for Vivaldi Android, and it was easier to whip that feature together than it was to implement extension support properly. So it serves as a great stop gap for the time being. On the desktop though, there are myriad tools that are lightyears ahead of any browser's native blocking. Given the very limited resources at Vivaldi, I'd prefer they prioritize other work, such as fixing bugs and innovating on the browser like they have in the past rather than incrementally expand blocking on the desktop.
‡ The caveat here being whatever actually happens come Manifest v3. It remains to be seen if tools like UBO & UM will be crippled by it. Even if so, Vivaldi has indicated the possibility of simply restoring the functionality extension developers require, should it be lost. That would probably be the best approach as there are more extensions than just blockers that make use of it.
-
I didn't forget proxies. They are not even close to what blocking extensions can do -- some would argue a proxy solution is worse than the worst nightmares of what Manifest v3 might be.
@JohnConnorBear said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
So they can't do anything about what APIs Chromium/Chrome expose.
Yes they can. They have restored functionality in the past, and they could easily maintain the API giving extension developers the functionality they need to keep extensions like uBlock Origin and uMatrix working as they do now. Vivaldi has, in fact, mentioned this previously. Your doom & gloom prognostications are not accurate.
-
OH, by the way, the very existence of the current "built-in blocker" says something.
This, like restoring the API, has already been discussed elsewhere. It was one of the most requested features, and whipping together an ad-blocker was simpler & quicker than developing complete extension support on Android. This isn't the thread for this discussion.
@JohnConnorBear said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
Wall of text.
It's not my idea. As I wrote in my initial post:
Vivaldi has indicated the possibility of simply restoring the functionality extension developers require, should it be lost
Ad blockers or not – your choice matters
Once the change is introduced to Chromium, believe me when I say that there are many, many possible scenarios.
Restoring the API could be one of them. We’ve restored functionality before.You'll forgive me for trusting software developers intimately familiar with the code base over hand-waving "history" and "philosophy". Restoring the API is one option. As is a limited extension store of their own offering extension developers the functionality they require. There are numerous possibilities. Wishy-washy scare-mongering without basis in actual technical details is not only a non-existent doomsday, it's offtopic in this thread. If you care to discuss it further, this isn't the thread.
-
@BoneTone Teehee, noice one.
-
@Obiwan2208 You might be unaware of this, but you can create a local file with your Adblock-compatible filters, and load it up in Vivaldi. It's still a bit clunky, will give an error the first time, and updating when you do changes is not exactly intuitive (disable and enable again).
This button here:
But yes, a UI to add our own filters would be a nice addition.
-
@JohnConnorBear said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
Again, "restoring the API" basically means to fork Chromium.
Again, I'll trust those intimately familiar with the code.
"We are not proposing a fork," von Tetzchner said.
"That being said, we do maintain some differences with Chromium as needed, so if necessary, we could do that again. We can do that without doing a full fork, we just maintain some differences.It all really depends on what Manifest v3 ends up being. It's too early to tell whether the best approach would be to restore the API, to create a full fork, or if any of these or the many other options will even be necessary.
@JohnConnorBear said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
sorry for anybody who feels offended by this
I take no offense, nor am I aware of anyone taking offense from what you've written. Similarly, I mean no offense with what I write.
So forking Chromium goes against actual Vivaldi "mission", that is NOT to develop and/or maintain a browser but a GUI on top of Chromium. Does it make sense?
No, it doesn't make sense. Vivaldi currently makes changes that are far deeper than the GUI -- a GUI which unlike many other Chromium-based browsers isn't just a replacement of a few key strings and assests; it is a complete replacement written with different technologies. Further, they've built a lot of C++ code which is part of the browser's "gears", to borrow your term. Pretending this is a fundamentally monumental task ignores the fact that they currently do it.
You need a "store" to distribute "Vivaldi-compatible extensions"
Yeah, that was discussed already in the resource I provided from more than a year ago. This is stale, old hash.
In my own language there is a saying that translates in "there is the ocean in between saying and doing".
Vivaldi has completely replaced the browser's UI which provides its unique flexibility & power; Vivaldi has created core (non-GUI) features that aren't part of the Chromium codebase; they've restored functionality previously removed by Chromium; they have even made changes to the engine itself. The reality of what Vivaldi is doing just doesn't match what you are saying.
Please, let's show @Obiwan2208 some respect and stop littering this thread. I posted a relevant reply, of which you took one small piece and derailed the conversation offtopic. Personally, I will not reply to further offtopic posts here. If you want to continue it, start your own thread.
-
@Pathduck said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
It's still a bit clunky, will give an error the first time, and updating when you do changes is not exactly intuitive (disable and enable again).
Yep, it's a pain in ass, I see that you tried harder than me, I tried it but unsuccessful. At least already I learnt to hide elements by CSS selectors.
The adblocker need to improve, these are its first steps, understable. Meanwhile I'll try out UBO as @BoneTone suggested as "the best", so I can build the missing rules for day-a-day browsing since I'm already subscribed with lists that I need from FanBoy and EasyList.
@BoneTone said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
[...]you took one small piece and derailed the conversation offtopic.[...]
Thanks @BoneTone by keep the staff on the right lane for this thread: to create the list directly on browser and keep it synchronised on the other devices with Sync. A simple and clean solution. Thanks dudes, you've pushed hard on the debate, just remember: "right time, right place".
Then, further ahead, we could share our lists with the community forum for complement our own.
-
@Obiwan2208 said in Add custom blocking rules to Vivaldi's Adblocker:
At least already I learnt to hide elements by CSS selectors.
The adblocker need to improve, these are its first steps, understable. Meanwhile I'll try out UBO as @BoneTone suggested as "the best",A few notes since you'll be using UBO for the first time. Make sure you get uBlock Origin, not just plain uBlock which is now owned by ABP, and comes with an exceptions list for "acceptable" ads enabled by default. You definitely want uBlock Origin.
The wiki on GitHub is extremely useful. UBO is a powerful tool, so it's a large wiki. It takes time to become fully proficient as an "advanced user", but it's still very good even in easy mode for novice users. In another thread I posted links to a many of what I consider the most important wiki pages. If you review my recent posts, it wasn't long ago.
The logger is a fantastic tool for both unbreaking sites, as well as creating new custom filters. There is a useful DOM browser in the logger too.
In the extension popup, there is the Element Picker, which lets you point & click to have rules generated for you, no need to write them scratch. Most of those rules will almost certainly work in Vivaldi.
Happy Surfing,
BoneTone -
@LonM Could you please point out the docs for these capabilities?
I can't find any useful settings for ads blocker. Only add/ignore concrete domain. -
Ppafflick moved this topic from Vivaldi for Renault on -
Currently, only built-in AD blocking rules can be selected. In specific scenarios, custom rules cannot be added as required. Therefore, customization and freedom are not high, which cannot meet requirements
So I had to install an external ad-blocking plugin, such as uBlock Origin.
Where possible, I would prefer to use built-in plugins to address my customization needs
-
@hhs66317
Hi, you can add custom rules/lists from external sources or .txt files with a single rule, for example.
What did you meant with:In specific scenarios
