Code: Select all
@@||winfuture.de^$elemhide
@@||o0.winfuture.de^$script,domain=winfuture.de
@@||googlesyndication.com/pagead/*$script,domain=winfuture.de
@@||googleads.g.doubleclick.net^$script,domain=winfuture.de
http://winfuture.de/news,67557.html (a randomly picked article)
Advertising type
Text ads only
Additional technical information
Third-party ad service used, advertising types restricted by configuration
Concerns
We currently have as a rule: "only one script from one domain". This is clearly violated here, ad scripts are served by three different domains. The feedback we got: they have to rely on third-party ad services and cannot control the technical details of ad delivery (which is sadly true for most smaller web sites). The question is whether this requirement is reasonable: browsers do DNS prefetching and speculative parsing now, page load delays delays due to scripts (and particularly DNS resolution for scripts) might not be relevant any more. On the other hand, other advertising services manage to create significant delays with just one script. So maybe a better requirement can be found (it still has to be verifiable though).
The other concern is disabling element hiding on the entire winfuture.de domain which seems to be the only possibility here. It might have unintended side-effects, e.g. it makes plista ads appear. Plista ads cannot be blocked without disabling useful functionality (related articles), but then again - these are also text ads and there are no problems with our requirements.
Finally, the ad in the article body is problematic IMHO. If it is acceptable then it should be marked more clearly (different background color like the plista ads). As it is now, there isn't enough separation from the article text.