Adblock Plus 0.6 - do we need "Keep lists sorted"?

Everything about using Adblock Plus on Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey
Post Reply
Wladimir Palant

Adblock Plus 0.6 - do we need "Keep lists sorted"?

Post by Wladimir Palant »

I would like to add grouping to the filter list in the Preferences dialog with the next release, so that all whitelist filters come first, ad filters then and at the end we get externally synchronized filters grouped by source. This could be streamlined by dropping "Keep list sorted" option - any new filter would be simply added to the right location, the list would be always sorted, no more resorting when the Preferences dialog is opened.

Now I know that rue is strictly against dropping this option, he says he needs it. I'm pretty sure rue isn't going to use Adblock Plus 0.6 but maybe somebody else also has a reason why this option should be kept? I would like to see this reason.
fx user

Post by fx user »

If there would be an efficient grouping, filtering, listing, I see no need of this option.

Some kind of searchbar could perhaps become useful. But this depends on implemention of the grouping and how clearly it is arranged.

The goal must be, that everybody (at least most people ;) ) can find a specific filter as fast as possible. But this can be achieved by various techniques...
MAD-Max

Post by MAD-Max »

I don't know if "keep shorting" the filters is usefull, may be for find easily an specific filter into list, and disabled "keep shorting" filters may be usefull for find recently added filters (may be a filter someone do not know if works well or not).

Related to this, I think it will be great if each filters stores how many times has been used to block something (hit ratio), in this way user could select to remove an unused filter in order to speed up browsing.


** Sorry for my poor english in all comments **
IceDogg
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:22 pm

Post by IceDogg »

MAD-Max wrote:Related to this, I think it will be great if each filters stores how many times has been used to block something (hit ratio), in this way user could select to remove an unused filter in order to speed up browsing.
I've always like this idea. I've heard it before. And an over all hit count too, both of which I would like to see.

Wladimir do you think that would be bloat? Possible for future?
NJH
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:23 am
Location: Hampshire, England

Post by NJH »

Without seeing filter grouping it is hard to comment constructively. I presume the grouping would have to be a manual entry. Keeping filters sorted means you will pretty much know whereabouts to go to find a filter (especially new ones when, playing about with them) without having to make an additional grouping entry. For that reason I like the grouping of filters.
Wladimir Palant

Post by Wladimir Palant »

@IceDogg: No, this feature should be useful. With a little consideration it can be even implemented without slowing everything down. It will however require some changes so target for this is 0.6.2 at the best. Ideally it would be an optional column but I'm not sure I can make the column picker work here... I filed http://bugzilla.mozdev.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12906 on this.

@NJH: No, the grouping isn't supposed to be manual. The list will simply group all whitelist rules, all blocking filters and all external filters (the latter would actually have one group for every filter source).
IceDogg
Posts: 909
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:22 pm

Post by IceDogg »

Thanks for the reply Wladimir. Sounds good.
Paulfox

Post by Paulfox »

Wladimir Palant wrote:The list will simply group all whitelist rules, all blocking filters and all external filters (the latter would actually have one group for every filter source).
1. Would the filters within each group be alphabetized as they are now?
2. I don't understand "blocking" vs "external."
3. Could a category be added for "experimental/working?"

Since I'm assuming #1 is "yes," and #3 is probably "no," I vote for no additional ordering or categories - leave like it is. It's easy enough to "somewhat remember" a filter's position in the list you're working on, and if whitelisting is still done with "@@," then they're grouped together in the list anyway under present "ordering rules."

Solution for "frequency of use" stats: I export my filterset regularly, and IMPORT as a CSV file saved in Excel. Then colorize the ones "green" that are used often - soon sorts out the dogs, and keeps a master "roster" of filters you've dumped and for what reasons.
Wladimir Palant

Post by Wladimir Palant »

Ok, I'll leave "keep lists sorted" in place. It should move to the context menu of the filters list though.

PS: By "external filters" I meant synchronized filters.
Jheriko

Post by Jheriko »

There should be a "Keep list sorted by date added" in addition to "Keep list sorted by name" (the current option)


I will show my reasoning through this example:


Here I am, surfing on a page, and whoops, I accidentally Adblock an image.

Oh shoot, must unblock it, must unblock it.

Let's go to Preferences. Oh no, I have hundreds of filters and "Keep List Sorted" is on! They're in alphabetical order instead of first to last added! D'oh!

Perhaps if I uncheck it, they will be back to the order they were added? Let's try... good gosh, that doesn't work!

Darn it, now I have to manually hunt down that image I just blocked! Oh woe is me!

(dramatization)
Wladimir Palant

Post by Wladimir Palant »

Well, that is a possibility - if "Sort list" is checked the list is sorted alphabetically and when the mark is removed it returns into its original (unsorted) state.
Jheriko

Post by Jheriko »

Well, I would prefer that there'd be two clearly-labeled choices,
but I guess that method works too. (though it doesn't explicitly indicate that it's by date added if unchecked)
Paulfox

Post by Paulfox »

Some options, perhaps:

1. You should export your filterset and keep it in a "LGS" (Last Good Snapshot) file somewhere in docs (along with other important stuff BookMark Backup will save for you on closing!). If anything "nasty happens, as Jheriko mentions (and we've all done it!) just reimport LGS file. That should be burned to a CD too, by the way. "RIght click add-ons" will NOT be a regex, which should make them easier to find among the "http"'s. Since the sidebar is now "ral-time," you'd see a grayed out element that pointed to your goof quicker in 0.6, and without a refresh. Remember that once you REMOVE a filter, a refresh IS necessary to make the image "appear again."

2. This is tricky but if you really wanted a certain order, you COULD take the exported filter file and IMPORT to an excel .csv file. Move the rows where you want. Convert back to text file and re-import - that would enable you to set them in the order you wish. However, that's kind of a nightmare with respect to formatting on the "text file re-create," and you might end up having to import the line by line, which for some would be a nightmare. IceDogg had a good thought that is: isn't it more efficient, especially with multiple reg-ex's, to have them in alphabetical order? This is how I've arranged (and greatly shortened) my filterset, so it isn't looking for a series starting with "p," then having the "a"'s to go through. It's one long string in prefs - seems to be you'd want in alphabetical order. The whitelisting filters ("@@") group themselves together.

Personally I've gotten used to the order they're in by keeping them "sorted," which shows expressions like "/(a(tlas|vanti)/" (just an example, do not use!) above multi-regex's starting with "b," as it should be.
Wladimir Palant

Post by Wladimir Palant »

@Paulfox: I'm very sorry but I could only understand half of what you said. Having automatic backups for the filters list the way firefox does it for bookmarks is a good thing, agreed. Other than that I didn't get what you are suggesting. In 0.6.1 I should implement Jheriko's suggestion - sorting can be undone. This means that Adblock won't really reorder filters (unless explicitely requested via context menu or Ctrl-Up/Ctrl-Down) but it might display them in alphabetical order.
Paulfox

Post by Paulfox »

The backup procedure I explained in #1 should be followed by the user, manually. No need for AB+ to do anything. Backing up your prefs in BookMark Bckup is also a good idea - again, nothing "required" of AB+.

Point #2 referred to manual method people could arrange their filters if they're absolutely determined to have them in a certain order other than AB+ puts them in.

Neither point require anything form AB+ - just answering Jheriko in terms of correcting a goof and not knowing where the bad filter was. The present ordering is just fine, and in fact there are benefits to it in terms of AB "reading" the regex's in order.
Post Reply