Why is Chrome so different than Firefox?

[ChromeNoob]

As a long time Firefox AdBlock user, I am disappointed with the usability of the Chrome extension. Many of the features that made AdBlock so convenient and efficient are absent from the Chrome version, and there is no apparent way to engage them. For example, in Firefox a handy "Block" icon would appear when you moused over images, frames or videos you wanted to block. It was much easier to edit the keywords/domain you wished to block, as several options would appear. In Chrome, each time you want to block something new, say a pop up window or something else that doesn't register with the "easy" create filter, you have to take the time to open the extension and make sure you type the correct keyword into the list. In Firefox, if you encounter a new pop-up window, it is very easy to copy the domain and paste it into the list of preferences. The keyword does not automatically delete, so every time you want to enter another keyword you must highlight and delete the last one. Then, if you block too much and make the website not work, you have to go back to the list and remember what you typed in and delete it. In Firefox if this happens, there is a handy option when you right click the AdBlock icon that lets you "Show Blockable Items." The list handily shows what type of items are blocked and if you want to block something else, it shows all the items on the page, all of which are easily turned off and on by clicking an X. If you want to delete more than one thing in a row, you have to re-select the item each time.

Obviously, AdBlock for Firefox is not perfect. It does not block all pop-up windows, and sometimes it does not block everything you wish it could. But after using the Chrome version it is hard not to think of it as ideal. Chrome is a snazzy browser that is also less user friendly than Firefox (I am not sure if you can add these features, but there is no homepage button, no "reload all tabs" option, it does not warn you before you close tabs, no select all option under edit, etc.), but the video quality is so amazing it blows Firefox out of the water. Because I watch a lot of TV shows online, and they have a lot of ads on whatever site you watch them on, I wish Chrome had a better version of AdBlock so I could have an enjoyable, ad-free viewing experience like Firefox.

I also installed the AdBlock element hider but that doesn't seem to do much in my experiments so far, namely trying to watch Hoarders on the A&E website without brightcove ads screaming at me. I can't block them in Firefox either, those tricky bastards. Thanks for letting me air my dirty, ad-opposing laundry.

[lewisje]

Adblock+ Element Hiding Helper for Chrome has no relationship with Adblock Plus for Chrome (unlike with the Firefox extension, there are no supplementary extensions for ABPC at this time); also to answer your questions more generally, the Chrome extensions API is much more limited than on Firefox, although a notable addition (WebRequest) will finally allow Chrome to block all content matching blocking rules, even within plugin content like Flash videos, just as the Firefox extension can, and if you use Chrome Dev with experimental extension support, you can try a special proof-of-concept version of ABPC with WebRequest enabled, just by going to the stickied topic.

[EvenMoreNoob]

Having just installed Chrome for the first time today, I have to say - it's very, very fast.

This is somewhat overshadowed by it's lack of customizability. I have pretty much the same feeling as the OP, I'd like to see a "Blockable Items" list such as that found in Firefox, but from what I've read it's just not feasible with the way Chrome is. The click highlighted boxes to block them thing works, but not all the time. For instance, on websites where a pop-up gets through but there is nothing to block, is the best option here to remember the URL and then manually add it to the filters?

I'd also like to ask, is there any chance that we will see that feature in the future, or is it up to Google to extend the capability of plug-ins?

Thank you!

[lewisje]

I'd also like to ask, is there any chance that we will see that feature in the future, or is it up to Google to extend the capability of plug-ins?

Thank you!

First of all, the term is "extensions"; plugins are used to let the browser handle certain media types that it cannot natively handle, like Flash for .swf files.

Anyway, most Chromium development is done by Google engineers, and they do appear to lead the development roadmap, so it is indeed up to Google to make extensions ever more powerful; as new APIs are added for extensions ("experimental" APIs), they are tested to ensure that they work as expected and don't lead to massive security issues before landing in the stable version of Chrome.

[EvenMoreNoob]

First of all, the term is "extensions"; plugins are used to let the browser handle certain media types that it cannot natively handle, like Flash for .swf files.

I have to say, while I appreciate the rest of your response, this came across as fairly pretentious. By the way you worded it, I'm really unable to discern if you're just telling me so I don't continue using the wrong term, or if you're on a high horse.

I'm still curious to know if the only way to block ads that are not visible is by manually adding them to be filtered. Perhaps it would be best to start my own thread for that.

[lewisje]

First of all, the term is "extensions"; plugins are used to let the browser handle certain media types that it cannot natively handle, like Flash for .swf files.

I have to say, while I appreciate the rest of your response, this came across as fairly pretentious. By the way you worded it, I'm really unable to discern if you're just telling me so I don't continue using the wrong term, or if you're on a high horse.

I'm still curious to know if the only way to block ads that are not visible is by manually adding them to be filtered. Perhaps it would be best to start my own thread for that.

I'm telling you so you don't continue using the wrong term; even the tech press often gets it wrong and it's sad

The only way to block an ad that is not visible (or, say, delivered by a plugin) is to manually add it to your custom filters, although it may be possible to manually add a filter subscription that blocks the ad, among others.

[EvenMoreNoob]

Ahh, okay. Thank you!

I have to say, I've seen your other posts on the forum (I also noticed you posted ~12 times since yesterday) and you offer quite a bit with your well-informed, well-written responses.

Are you part of ABP's development or is that solely Wladimir? Either way, you're an asset to this forum.

[lewisje]

Are you part of ABP's development or is that solely Wladimir? Either way, you're an asset to this forum.

I have no role in the development of ABP; I'm just obsessive about passive security: https://code.google.com/p/jansal/wiki/PassiveSecurity

Almost all development is performed by Wladimir Palant, who first forked Adblock Plus from an older Firefox extension called "Adblock" and more recently took over AdThwart and re-named it "Adblock Plus for Google Chrome"; the creator of AdThwart, Tom Joseph, doesn't have much time for extension development anymore, but he did get the ball rolling on creating a build of the Chrome extension that took advantage of the now-experimental WebRequest API.
(It's a bit sad that Michael Gundlach, the developer of the once-superior Chrome extension Adblock from around the same time as Joseph's AdThwart, has decided not to join forces with Palant, but I hope at least that Palant eventually makes use of the work that Gundlach has done to port his extension to Safari, where it is able to block content perfectly, and to allow his extension to handle abp: links.)

Now ABP is an open-source project, so if someone else finds some optimization or new functionality to add and is able to come up with a patch to actually implement it, it can be sent to Palant or whoever else has commit access on the Mercurial repository; additionally, anyone can file bugs for the contributors to work on, but that makes more work for them and is not exclusive to open-source projects.

Someday I might actually dig into the source code of ABP to see how it all works; I've already briefly looked over it and I already learned something important that overturned a long-standing misperception: Its work appeared to be so powerful as to need binary components, yet ABP has none, and all of its filter-matching and content-blocking are done with Javascript.
(However, all attempts to make an Internet Explorer extension that used ABP lists, along with the old SafariAdblock for Mac that pre-dated support for extensions in Safari, did require binary components, but that was only because of how the platforms were set up rather than the power required.)