Real-Experience quite CONTRARY to Features Description!



  • Dear Folks! The Browser Description on the Home-Page claims a minimum-requirement towards installing the 3rd Party-Extensions as nearly everything can be Customized from within! Now Please tell me on how to BLOCK Ads through In-Built Customization? Don't we require a 3rd-party extension to Block the Web Ads & Miscellaneous Trackers in an effective manner? I tried using --"Block 3rd party Cookies"...but it couldn't be observed contributing anything significant towards end-User's Optimized experience! & Lastly, what if I wish to "Accelerate" Downloads from within the Browser? Integrated-Download Accelerator is available for other Chromium-based Web Browsers such as---Torch, UC..etc.! Where's the choice within Vivaldi? Won't I be requiring an External extension to achieve this Objective? Please explain. Thank you.



  • Hello Sajadi!

    Nevertheless of whatever you claim, there should have been an Inbuilt Ad-Blocker to mitigate the woes of a Frictioned cum Constipated Performance of Vivaldi Browser! Your Browser have made a foray at a time when People's expectations have Sky-rocketed in terms of a fully-loaded, snappier Performance driven Tool to navigate the Web in the Most Distraction-free manner!

    Constipated Performance coupled with a spew of Ads cluttered against any Destined Web-page is surely ins't a Guarantee to dole-out a Nice– First as well as Last Impression!

    When even lesser known Browser developers (those from Chinese) have happily integrated Ad-Blockers, then Vivaldi should have raised the Bar to leverage on that De facto standard!
    Many Thanks!



  • Perhaps there's some terminology confusion in the English language, but ad-blocking is a "feature" whereas "customization" usually refers to a user's ability to change the settings or configuration of which functions and features are already present in the browser. The ad-blocking you seek may eventually come to exist internally as a feature in the browser as its development continues, but nothing of that sort is claimed yet.

    Indeed, ad blocking is important for many users (myself included), while download accelerators are important to some (but not as many) users. However, there are myriads of users who each want a wide variety of different features built into a browser. Not all of them will be satisfied else the browser code would explode in size to accommodate them all and development of such a browser by a finite number of developers would take many dozens of years… so the features that will be added have to be prioritized for orderly development and test. In the meantime, extensions provide capability for gaining user-needed features and functionality.

    Even though Vivaldi has now created its first stable release, it's still very early days in its development. For perspective, from Olde Opera's earliest embryonic days at Telenor, through its branching into the separate Opera ASA company, it took roughly 20 years to reach the full internal feature-state that came to exist by the time version 12.14 came along. Good things take time to create them properly. I believe Vivaldi will be no different, but it's going to take time and user patience.



  • @saurabhdua:

    When even lesser known Browser developers (those from Chinese) have happily integrated Ad-Blockers, then Vivaldi should have raised the Bar to leverage on that De facto standard!

    One thing to remember is that the modern web is largely funded by advertising. It's the reason you can get all sorts of free content online, when the server and production costs would otherwise make that impossible. If you want to block ads in your browser, that's fine, but it's not in your best interest for everyone to be blocking ads at a large scale. If it became the norm for popular browsers to include ad-blocking by default, then most of the sites you currently visit for free would need to either shut down, or find some other way to extract money from their visitors. You would see significantly more subscription paywalls to access content and services, and significantly less free content.

    Plus, advertisers would likely focus on ways to get around ad blocking, such as embedding advertisements directly within the video stream at video sharing sites, or displaying entire pages of sites as pre-rendered images with the advertisements embedded, making them unblockable. It's in everyone's best interest that a large portion of web users don't block ads. And as someone who uses an ad-blocker, you shouldn't go out of your way to encourage others to do so, since the wider adoption of ad-blocking will negatively affect your own web-browsing experience in the long run.



  • @Cryo:

    … It's in everyone's best interest that a large portion of web users don't block ads. And as someone who uses an ad-blocker, you shouldn't go out of your way to encourage others to do so, since the wider adoption of ad-blocking will negatively affect your own web-browsing experience in the long run.

    While that sentiment is nice in principle, it runs afoul of current reality. At the risk of derailing the thread, I would point out that until websites and ad-servers start meaningfully vetting their ad clients, ad blocking will only continue growing. Most static ads don't bother me… I can read right around them; animated or grossly flashing ads are pure annoyance squared! But the real reason I and many others block ads is because of one serious problem: the sellers of ad-space at all levels cannot be trusted to assure the ads appearing on their webpages will be 'clean' - that is, free from script-driven malware/adware exploits, otherwise known as drive-bys.

    Recent history is replete with all kinds of malicious ads that have harmed the unwary visitor on even big-name sites, as a simple Googling will immediately verify. Moreover, the problem is growing almost exponentially. Until the day something effective, reliable, and robustly user-configurable like No-Script is available for chrome-based browsers to block ad scripting or until web-sites and ad-servers exert some serious effort to put a full halt to the malware scripting abuse appearing on their hosted adspaces, I and many others will continue using the most stringent ad-blockers and host files I can find. This is really computer 'Internet Security 101'.



  • I actually do make use of ad and script blocking extensions for privacy and security reasons, but there are plenty of people who don't really care. On average, only around 10% of page views have their ads blocked, though that can be higher among certain demographics. In most cases though, there are still enough people not using ad blockers to allow sites to provide free content and services in exchange for advertising revenue. If major browsers had ad-blocking functionality built in, however, many of these sites would need to either shut down, charge users for site access, or serve ads in ways that are even more intrusive to prevent them from being blocked. Good luck selecting text in an article when the entire content portion of the page is a jpeg image.

    Ideally, I'd like to see advertisements hosted on the content sites themselves rather than being served from third-party ad networks, and for them to all be simple clickable images without tracking scripts attached, although I can see how that might be difficult for advertisers and smaller sites to work with. Another option would be for ads to be served by the browser itself, so long as it was done in a way that avoids tracking, which is something the Brave browser is aiming for. But again, that's something that would require a long term change in the way advertisements are provided, and not something that's easily incorporated into a browser. Including ad-blocking tools in browsers by default without providing sites with an alternative way to serve ads in a safe and nonintrusive way is only likely to make things worse.

    @Blackbird:

    Until the day something effective, reliable, and robustly user-configurable like No-Script is available for chrome-based browsers

    Honestly, I think No-Script is not a good extension for most people. What it does can be considered good from a security standpoint, but it ultimately breaks much of the modern web, and its interface for getting a broken site working is nonintuitive and cumbersome. You might visit a particular site to find it broken, and have to sift through a list of a couple dozen scripts in hope of finding what individual scripts might be necessary to get it working. Oftentimes the script you need to enable might be loaded only after another script has run, forcing you to reload the page and hunt through the maze of scripts multiple times just to restore a site's functionality. For everyday browsing use, that's just not something most people are going to want to put up with. There are better extensions that block scripts in more intuitive ways, that are less of a pain to deal with.



  • @Cryo:

    … Honestly, I think No-Script is not a good extension for most people. ... There are better extensions that block scripts in more intuitive ways, that are less of a pain to deal with.

    That may be true… or not, depending on one's point of view. But my primary point was only that there are solid security reasons at present for not accepting website ads. Whether they're blocked by ad-blocking, script-blocking, and/or host file blocking, the point remains that many users block because the potential for malicious scripting constitutes a clear-and-present threat to safe browsing. That threat exists solely because websites and the ad-servers paying them for ad-space do not thoroughly proof their rotating ad clients and what those providers are automatically tossing up into the ad spaces via script coding. The simple truth is that neither the websites or their ad-server clients care enough about this to apply the necessary resources and expend the needed revenue to keep clean what they host... it's far easier to simply collect the auto-generated ad revenue and relay out to visitors whatever script coding some unvetted ad provider creates, no website-owner effort required. This is a chronic problem that is fast becoming a rampant problem.

    I agree the answer is for sites to control or, preferably halt, the use of scripted ads. But, as you note, any relief in that arena is going to take a very long time, if it ever happens. In the meantime, users are having to deal with the here-and-now threats inherent in website advertising the way it currently is structured. Their only practical protective tool is some form of blocking.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.