Slashdot Mirror


Google Says It Killed 780 Million 'Bad Ads' In 2015 (cio.com)

itwbennett writes: According to a new Google report, the search giant disabled more than 780 million "bad ads," including include ads for counterfeit products, misleading or unapproved pharmaceuticals, weight loss scams, phishing ploys, unwanted software and "trick-to-click" cons, globally last year. This marks a 49 percent increase over 2014. For perspective, it would take an individual nearly 25 years to look at the 780 million ads Google removed last year for just one second each, according to Google. If the trend continues, Google's team of more than 1,000 staffers dedicated to killing spam will be even busier in 2016, and they could disable more than a billion junky ads.

92 comments

  1. Me too by swimboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet I killed at least that many by installing AdBlock.

    --
    Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
    1. Re:Me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switched to uBlock 10 months ago, 449.427 or 12% of requests blocked since then.

    2. Re:Me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I bet I killed at least that many by installing AdBlock.

      Install ublock. AdBlock no longer blocks everything, they white list advertisers who pay them a generous fee.Google it for more info.

    3. Re:Me too by swimboy · · Score: 1

      Just because AdBlock *can* allow "non-intrusive advertising" doesn't mean that my copy is configured that way. AdBlock absolutely blocks everything when you tell it to. I concede that it sucks that it's not configured that way out-of-the-box, and ublock may be better, but saying that AdBlock no longer blocks everything is patently false.

      --
      Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
  2. That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    780M? That's nothing. I've killed *all* ads, years ago...

    1. Re:That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. What does our internet bill have to do with anything? I pay for the data, so I decide what I download or not. I didn't sign any contract stating that I must watch all ads.

      Besides, there was a whole internet without ads, looong time ago. Then some fuckwad invented the popup.

    2. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but your payment for your data does not pay the remote end's cost. If they want to serve ads as part of their business model and you don't want the ads then don't visit the site.

    3. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks. I'm content with purposefully losing them money. The Internet needs less BuzzFeeds.

    4. Re: That's nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol again. There are so many things wrong with that.

      If they don't want me to visit their site, they should not publish their stuff publicly on the internet. That's like handing out free newspapers, and then complaining because I fold them so I don't see the ads. I consume the web the way I want to. For all you know I'm deaf and blind, and can only read text via a screen reader.

      I don't have to support their broken business model, nor do I want to. If that means they will lock up their content behind a paywall, they were free to do so at any time.

      When this "monetizing the web" BS started, people started to expect to get paid for any trivially little thing. Well, by that metric they should be paying me too, for the time I spend reading their (often crappy) stuff. I'm sure they already make lots of money just tracking and selling my reading preferences and clicks.

      Last but not least: By blocking ads, I'm making a statement. I. DO. NOT. WANT!
      I do not want their crappy popups and unders, the megs of autostarting videos, the nervously blinking images, the loud sounds screaming from my speakers. And I certainly don't want their malware and spyware, or tracking every move I make.

      So you can keep your guilt tripping, I'm not taking it.

    5. Re: That's nothing by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      your payment for your data does not pay the remote end's cost. If they want to serve ads as part of their business model and you don't want the ads then don't visit the site.

      I don't give a shit whether their business model works or not. The sites that depend on this business model the most are generally the ones I have least wish to visit. The internet is here to stay, but it could do with a lot of the crap being pruned out.

  3. Spam took over the internet by bretts · · Score: 0

    Let's face it, when you set up a mini-economy based on selling ads, people are going to take advantage of it. Google is paying less per impression because the ads are less effective in actually selling products. That sets up a clickbait economy that rewards the type of spammy products and scams that Google is now trying to filter out. When do we admit the whole thing is a house of cards that's totally over-valued in the market?

  4. And how many bad ads... by theodp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...did it deliver? :-)

    1. Re:And how many bad ads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no good ads, so ...

  5. Meh. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    The only good ads are dead ads, so these 780 million are arguably better than the ones that Google spared.

  6. Did an editor read this? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    including include ads for counterfeit products

    You do know typos make the site look stupid and unprofessional, right? But you just don't care?

    Posted by timothy

    Never mind.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Did an editor read this? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Timmay!!!!

    2. Re:Did an editor read this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do it on purpose to increase clicks by people like you.

    3. Re: Did an editor read this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timmmaay! Might be disabled and only able to speak one word with different intonations, but he's still more intelligible than Timothy.

    4. Re:Did an editor read this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      including include ads for counterfeit products

      You do know typos make the site look stupid and unprofessional, right? But you just don't care?

      That's actually the correct spelling of counterfeit. You know it makes you look stupid and unprofessional when you point the finger at someone when you are actually the one in the wrong.

    5. Re:Did an editor read this? by dolmen.fr · · Score: 1

      including include ads for counterfeit products

      You do know typos make the site look stupid and unprofessional, right? But you just don't care?

      That's actually the correct spelling of counterfeit. You know it makes you look stupid and unprofessional when you point the finger at someone when you are actually the one in the wrong.

      Did you had a look at the other parts of the sentence? It makes you look much more stupid and unprofessional when you point the finger at someone when you are actually the one in the wrong.

  7. Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I tried Firefox recently, after many years of using Chrome, and I was very surprised when Firefox started showing me "sponsored" tiles on the new tab page!

    The problem with this is two-fold:

    1) Firefox built the ads right into the browser.

    2) Firefox labeled them as "sponsored" instead of being honest and labeling them what they are: advertisements.

    I hear that they've come to their senses and are going to remove these ads, but the damage has still been done.

    How the hell can I trust Mozilla and Firefox after this debacle?

    How the hell could they have been so stupid as to build ads right into Firefox, especially when so many Firefox users use ad blocking extensions?!

    I know they need revenue, but doing this was totally unacceptable, and that fact should have been obvious from the start.

    I think that these ads built right into Firefox have completely ruined Firefox's reputation.

    1. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Firefox built the ads right into the browser.

      1) right now they are limited to the default start page, something I barely even notice that it exists

      2) I have only seen static adds, no Flash, no JavaScript, just static images. That reduces the exploit surface quite a bit and limits the annoyance.

      3) I am more annoyed at pocket since it belongs into an add on that can be disabled/removed.

      How the hell can I trust Mozilla and Firefox after this debacle?

      The other big browsers are directly controlled by big names in the data mining / advertisement business. AFAIK Chromes plug-in API is crippled in how and when it can intercept adds, while an add blocker can still hide adds it cannot stop Chrome from querying the add servers for "static" content ( for example 1x1 pixel transparent tracking images with unique ID).

    2. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      How the hell can I trust Mozilla and Firefox after this debacle?

      You can't, like many other people can't trust them either. And that's one of the continuing reasons that their market share is declining. Though one of the ex-CEO's chased off by regressive whiners over their private decisions, is making a new browser that looks good. Though we'll have to see if that's the case in a few months or not. Source is here of course.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Brave's very own home page it says (emphasis added):

      The new Brave browser blocks all the greed and ugliness on the Web that slows you down and invades your privacy. Then we put clean ads back, to fund website owners and Brave users alike.

      That's not at all what I want! I want the ads gone completely! I do not want them replaced with ads that Brave deems "clean", whatever the fuck that actually means.

      The important thing about Brave is that it proves that Gecko is a dead end browser engine and Firefox is a dead end browser. You know both Gecko and Firefox must be awful if even Eich, who was involved with Gecko/Firefox for many years, chooses to build upon Chromium instead!

    4. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) right now they are limited to the default start page, something I barely even notice that it exists

      No, they aren't, they're in the URL bar too.

      The other big browsers are directly controlled by big names in the data mining / advertisement business. AFAIK Chromes plug-in API is crippled in how and when it can intercept adds, while an add blocker can still hide adds it cannot stop Chrome from querying the add servers for "static" content ( for example 1x1 pixel transparent tracking images with unique ID).

      Yep. Of course, Firefox is moving to Chrome addon model this year, so in addition to having ads in the new tab page and the URL bar and the search bar, you won't be able to block ads any more either as they're going to be neutering AdBlock and flat-out killing NoScript.

      And, of course, since this new addon model is highly restrictive, it no longer will be possible to use addons to block new tab ads and URL bar ads.

    5. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Pale Moon.

      It's basically an old version of Firefox before they screwed it up too much that was forked off and kept up to date on security, useability, and speed, with it's own new features innovations, but with a development staff committed to customizability, not making stupid UI changes for the sake of making UI changes, and so on and so forth. No ads on that browser.

      Link:

      http://www.palemoon.org/

      Has it's own add-on site and then is compatible with select Firefox add-ons (Basically you can hunt the Mozilla site and see what works).

      If you're really old school and want it to look like a 90s browser, install this theme:

      https://addons.palemoon.org/themes/complete/past-modern-revisited/

      Ad-Block Latitude:

      https://addons.palemoon.org/extensions/privacy-and-security/adblock-latitude/

    6. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That browser is a giat steaming pile of shit.

      Let's block ads, and then insert new ones!

      Haha fuck no. I'll run chromium with uMatrix, thanks.

    7. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know Chrome is phoning home to Google with every URL you visit, right? Enjoy.

    8. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they aren't, they're in the URL bar too.

      Completely forgot about that, Firefox asked on my first search after the browser upgrade and I clicked "No" and never saw them.

      Yep. Of course, Firefox is moving to Chrome addon model this year

      I heard they where coordinating with some of the more popular plug-in makers to avoid loss of functionality. Basically support the Chrome API and extend where necessary. Of course if they fail to do that I might have to move to a different browser.

    9. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta say for all the fuss about the Firefox UI changes, losing the like Chrome did was the right decision. You get a few more vertical pixels and nothing of value is lost. I think most of the fuss is because they had just switched to the old Opera style, which was also an improvement not long before.

    10. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not at all what I want! I want the ads gone completely! I do not want them replaced with ads that Brave deems "clean", whatever the fuck that actually means.

      Slow down there, Veruca. You wanting everything w/o ads tells me that you're ready and willing to offer micropayments to the people creating and publishing all those web sites. I'd love to skip ads just like you, so could you please detail which are the best payment service you plan to use and how you'll make sure your cash reaches the numerous writers, designers, producers, and site owners for the ad-free websites you visit?

    11. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best web sites that I use are ad-free without ad blocking. They lose nothing from me blocking their non-existent ads. My own web sites are ad free (and free of tracking scripts). I pay for the domains and the hosting, end of story. Your comment was free to read, and that was the limit of what I would have paid for it. Sure, you posted it on Slashdot, and I blocked the ads, but you could have just as well posted it on some other site that doesn't have ads, or on a distributed discussion system that doesn't need someone to pay out of their own pocket to host the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the software that Slashdot uses was provided to them for free and without ads. How does that work? The world is not a place where everybody nickle-and-dimes each other to death and money is the only motivation. "Ads or micropayments" is a false dichotomy.

    12. Re: Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Websites and information existed before ads bombarded the Internet. So that is a bullshit excuse. We actually had higher quality content back then. Now the best you get is "top 10 things that cost money, you won't believe what they are".

      Fuck ads and fuck anyone saying that ads are needed to run the web. Bullshit. Provide a quality service and people will pay.

    13. Re: Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My packet sniffer and firewall say other wise. Google gets nothing from me.

    14. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      2) Firefox labeled them as "sponsored" instead of being honest and labeling them what they are: advertisements.

      What do you think sponsored means?

    15. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not "adds," OK?

    16. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're going to be neutering AdBlock and flat-out killing NoScript.

      Bullshit.

      They're even working directly with NoScript to make sure it works correctly under the new, stable, plugin system.

    17. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      2) Firefox labeled them as "sponsored" instead of being honest and labeling them what they are: advertisements.

      What do you think sponsored means?

      Yeah, that puzzled me too. OP apparently doesn't understand English.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh huh. You are aware that Firefox is run by advertisers now, right? There's no way they're going to allow an addon ecosystem that makes it possible to completely block trackers and ads, it goes against what they do. We had a chance for a tech-oriented Firefox, but unfortunately the advertisers managed to get Eich fired for bogus reasons.

    19. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sponsored" is the word you use when you're talking about advertisements but you don't have the balls to use the word "advertisement" directly.

      If Mozilla had labeled them as "advertisements", everyone who saw them would have been disgusted and probably stopped using Firefox. It would have gone from its pathetic 7% share of the market down to 0% overnight.

      But by labeling them as "sponsored", Mozilla managed to trick at least a few people into thinking these ads aren't as bad as they actually are.

      The word "advertisement" always has negative connotations. It's purely about greed and avarice, with no care given to the victim of the advertising.

      The word "sponsorship" is seen by some as being more akin to a donation, like when a local business financially supports a local kids' sports team.

      If you ever saw any of these advertisements in Firefox, you'd know that they were flat out advertisements and not just "sponsored" content.

    20. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      You wanting everything w/o ads tells me that you're ready and willing to offer micropayments to the people creating and publishing all those web sites.

      Quite right. No-one would put anything on the internet unless they are paid for it. So if you are reading this pearl of wisdom, send me a micropayment. It took time and effort and paid bandwith to post it.

    21. Re:Firefox built ads into the browser. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      2) Firefox labeled them as "sponsored" instead of being honest and labeling them what they are: advertisements.

      What do you think sponsored means?

      Sponsored means supporting someone financially or some other way. It does not have to involve advertisement, that is a particular case of sponsorship, but "sponsored" sounds posher.

      Sponsor : "One who enters an engagement on behalf of another." - according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.

  8. It's pretty bad... by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    I download a number of mods for a popular open source game for members of the family. The mods are hosted on adfly and this site does a very poor job getting ride of malicious ads. There are literally four or five 'Download' buttons that try to trick users into clicking on them to download the hosted file. A person in the family accidentally did this once and it resulted in installing four malvertizing programs. I wold highly recommend using an ad blocker.

    1. Re:It's pretty bad... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      I download a number of mods for a popular open source game for members of the family. The mods are hosted on adfly and this site does a very poor job getting ride of malicious ads.

      Doing a "poor job"? No, they are doing exactly the job they are paid to do. adfly, and others like it, exist for the sole purpose of delivering malicious and/or fraudulent advertising. I have yet to see adfly display an ad that WASN'T malware or completely fraudulent.

    2. Re:It's pretty bad... by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I'd never even think of clicking on something with a name remotely like "adfly". Are you kidding!

      Names like that lead, at best. to clickbait crap. Funny, so many scummy enterprises have urls that are like the bright coloration on the most toxic critters, a warning of the perils of proximity.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  9. looking up gotiesque ponzi scheme on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you fail to pay in you disappear

  10. Google Says It Killed 780 Million Bad Ads In 2015 by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    In other words, about 10% of them.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  11. Re:Google Says It Killed 780 Million Bad Ads In 20 by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    In other words, about 10% of them.

    And Google made a lot of money from the other 90%.

  12. Maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming that more than 1,000 staffers means 1,500 staffers.
    24.7336377473 years * 365.25 days/year = 9033 days
    9033/1500 = 6.022 (days for each staff member to clear all ads if it takes a second, or 144.528 hours)
    Assuming 240 work days per year, eight hours per day, i.e. 1920 hours of work time per year per staff member.
    They're dedicated to this task, so we can work out how many seconds they have per ad: 1920/144.528 = 13.3 seconds.

    Captcha: teletype

  13. Not enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still see plenty of ads diverting people who look for popular open source applications from the official sites to some scammer's site, where they at best only get shown more ads, but more likely get infected with a trojan horse. It does not matter how many bad ads Google kills. What matters is how many they don't kill.

  14. and I killed google long time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just add www/ssl.google-analytics to hosts file.

  15. Now if they can deal with the search jumpers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is stellar at dumping crap adds yes: but what about all the search engine wanabee spam bot malicious search aggregating sites that are starting to top get at the top of the google results? The majority of the so called "search aggregating" sites are nothing but idiotic spam bots! They jump on your searches and send you to click bait trash sites.

    This is the big problem with the net and why targeted searches will eventually fail. It all started with the so called "web masters" assholes that couldn't put up with people leaving sites and started using javascript garbage pop up techniques to trick and hose the user into staying on a site. THIS BULLSHIT HAS TO BE CASTRATED AND PUT OFF THE INTERNET somehow and soon. If there are no standards in refusing to host the assholes spam based "web master" sites, then very soon the net will become useless for: but not exclusive of, important functions like search, IMO. Who knows maybe BING will win the battle by finding a decent way to castrate the spam aggregating search bots effectively.

  16. 49% by wbr1 · · Score: 2
    Love or hat google, in my experience their ads rarely if ever are spammy, malware laden trash. Meaning they do a fair job of policing tier ad network. If they had a nearly 50% increase in the number of bad ads removed, it stands to reason that the other ad networks may have more (as the spammers know to use them and not Google).
    This is why the use of adblockers is exploding. Annoyance is one thing. Outright fraud and malware is another. When maybe 10% or more of ads are dangerous in some way, a person that browses 50 pages in a day, each with multiple ads will be exposed at least once, if not much more often to potential junk.

    These aren't just shady overseas viagra and porn sites either, it is coming from mainstream sites. My local news station's website was delivering an ad that targeted nexus users with a scam that replaced their news page.

    I am just afraid we will see lot's of good content die with the ad networks.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:49% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good content is content that wasn't written to serve as a canvas for ads. It existed before ads on the internet, it will exist after ads on the internet.

    2. Re:49% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad the nature of spamy, malware laden trash ads, is that they happen spontaneously, they happen when you least suspect it, and they deal damage before Google can react.
      Ads can go fuck off back to TV, Radio, billboards. On the Internet, they are nothing short of cancer.

    3. Re:49% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be stupid because Google just admitted to 780 million that they caught. What about the stuff they didn't catch. You saying that those are not spammy or malware laden trash or do you assume Google is perfect at catching everything?

  17. Re:Google Says It Killed 780 Million Bad Ads In 20 by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Definitely!

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  18. The Internet Signal to Noise Ratio - 0 by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 0

    The harder people push back against ads, the more arrogant and "Fuck You" the advertisers become. It's really getting to the point where finding information on the internet is looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack because of all the advertising pitfalls, page rank gaming, etc.. and the search engines simply aren't up to the task of sorting out what you need anymore. It's all noise.

    My effective, useful Internet has shrunk to about five websites. Every time I open the door to another website it seems I spend about 5 minutes waiting for it to render, then I have to update AdBlock to block all the invasive advertising, because the advertisers are desperately trying to end run around blocking. Shutting down all JavaScript speeds things up, but breaks a lot of sites. And when I finally find the information, I find that it is incomplete, un-cited, low quality.

    I'm really starting to wonder whether having internet is truly indispensable. I could text instead of email, go to the bank in person, get information out of dead tree books. I would miss Slashdot as it is an outlet for my snarkiness, but I could just be snarky to my wife (that's what they're for, right?).

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:The Internet Signal to Noise Ratio - 0 by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The harder people push back against ads, the more arrogant and "Fuck You" the advertisers become. It's really getting to the point where finding information on the internet is looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack because of all the advertising pitfalls, page rank gaming, etc.. and the search engines simply aren't up to the task of sorting out what you need anymore. It's all noise.

      You figure the advertisers are going to win after the internet becomes unusable? I'm not going to turn off my adblocker to look at sites that won't let me in because I'm using one. It isn't the right solution. If the customer becomes the enemy, then the advertiser shouldn't be too surprised if the customer treats them like the enemy.

      I have no responsibility to break through my smartphone's data cap just because someone thinks I should be forced to see ad's about what some housewife in Pennsylvania discovered that is driving the insurance companies crazy.

      Already, without ad blocking I personally consider the internet unusable. Making adblockers illegal will simply drive me away.

      My effective, useful Internet has shrunk to about five websites. Every time I open the door to another website it seems I spend about 5 minutes waiting for it to render, then I have to update AdBlock to block all the invasive advertising, because the advertisers are desperately trying to end run around blocking. Shutting down all JavaScript speeds things up, but breaks a lot of sites. And when I finally find the information, I find that it is incomplete, un-cited, low quality.

      I'm really starting to wonder whether having internet is truly indispensable. I could text instead of email, go to the bank in person, get information out of dead tree books. I would miss Slashdot as it is an outlet for my snarkiness, but I could just be snarky to my wife (that's what they're for, right?).

      The problem is that we've pretty much killed it. Allowing the prime use of the internet to be commercial interests and that anything they do is just fine, we've just about done it in. I did an analysis a few years abo on what just noscript does. And there have been sites I've gone to that have had 50 or more javascripts that run when I listed them. The surprise finding was that the biggest abuser is facebook. They are tracking the living hell out of people. Facebook is tracking you even if you aren't on facebook. Google is in there as well. Big difference is that google doesn't try to obscure that they re doing it. There are other trackers as well. The only innocuous script was a font rendering one.

      So if a site doesn't work for me, it's seldom my problem. I realize that all too many websites look at the user as the enemy, and have no desire to contract Intertoobz VD.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  19. Ah yes, 2 months of Indian hell for me by ugen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yep, I noticed that. I am running an ad for my (very small, independent) software product. It's essentially a hobby - sales are barely break-even with related hosting, and AdWords bring about half. I don't have much time to deal with AdWords so ads are mostly fixed. Occasionally (about once a year) I shuffle a few words in the text. Sometime early this year I did that again - and suddenly my ads were blocked "due to policy violation". Automated email requires you to review policy and edit ads for compliance - but there is no policy as such (at least nothing is clearly explained in writing). So I did my best guessing what they may want, edited ads again and resubmitted - same result. I re-edited the ads to original text, resubmitted - and at that point my ads were blocked again and then my entire AdWords account was blocked for "repeated violations"
    Through that time I attempted to contact AdWords support through online form (they don't expose direct email). I received several pointless replies - none of which directly answered my questions. Once account was blocked - I started calling. Most calls end up in the Indian call center, where reps seem to have neither desire nor ability to help, nor do they know what the actual rules are. I've been given several (perhaps 6?) different versions of what needs to be changed in the ad, on the web site and in the product itself. Examples include - "put EULA directly on the download page", "provide product removal instructions on the download page" (mind you, product removal instructions are - "drag application into the trash folder", quite literally). My favorite was a demand to "provide direct email for users to email my support on the download page", this is from AdWords that go to great lengths to hide their own email and allow only un-trackable contact through the web site. For comparison, I run a proper support ticket system - but there was no convincing them.

    As far as I could tell, Indian associates had no authority to deal with issues whatsoever and themselves had to contact a 3rd party (with unknown degree of authority) for answers or clarifications. Even when I made required changes, and resubmitted account for review (as they suggested) - either nothing happened at all or an automated message would come a few days later restating account and/or ad blocking for "policy violations". The cycle of response was running at 1 week per question.

    In parallel, to provide at least some visibility, I had to put ads on Bing. That's a whole another story, but suffice it to say - Bing payment vs. click rates did not make sense and I had to stop in about a month.

    The final demand was to put the name of actual software package into the ad. Back 8 years ago when I started, I picked a fairly long name for a product - it seemed fun at the time. Putting that name into character-limited ad would leave no space to say anything useful about the software. I suggested that software name could be placed in the URL (which normally references company name, they are similar but not the same). Customer reps. stated that this is not going to help - the name must be in the text. Nevertheless, I decided to try. I registered a new domain that matched software name and resubmitted the ad. As soon as I did - ad was approved and remains so.

    I suspect that through the entire process there was no connection at all between the (likely automated) review of ads and customer service. Ads marked as "bad" are probably left in that state forever, regardless of advertisers actions. By the time I changed the url either the giant push to "remove bad ads" was over or something's changed in automated rating, so the "new" ad passed. Curiously, ads for competing products (same industry, same type of software) ran unimpeded throughout the entire period, even though they do not comply with any of the requirements that were given to me. Perhaps they were smart enough to make no changes to ads during that time :)

    In conclusion - I am sure a V-level manager at Google reported

    1. Re:Ah yes, 2 months of Indian hell for me by dackroyd · · Score: 2

      To me this was yet another proof that Google became too big for what it is, and on an individual level dealing with Google is harder and less pleasant than dealing with a cable company.

      I don't think 'too big' is a good description for the fundamental problem. The real problem is that Google's business model has always relied on razor thin margins, and so it only makes a profit if it automates all of it's business processes. This works well for the vast majority of use cases, but when you get an edge case, such as yours their systems just aren't set up to to deal with it.

      Rather than increase the complexity of their business processes they have made an explicit decision to just not care about those edge cases, even if it means that people caught by those edge cases are unable to use Google products. With automated processes they can still serve 95% of the people who want to use Google services, at a much reduced cost than if they tried to serve 100% of customers.

      I don't think there is a simple solution to this. Google are too dominant in several areas to be replaced by competitors easily. And I can't see a feasible way to make them not have a financial desire to just ignore "edge case" customers. But yes, Google are at least a little bit evil in making the internet much harder to use for people who they can't easily make money from.

      --
      "Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
    2. Re:Ah yes, 2 months of Indian hell for me by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      To me this was yet another proof that Google became too big for what it is, and on an individual level dealing with Google is harder and less pleasant than dealing with a cable company.

      ^^^ THIS, times a million billion.

      Google is nearly impossible to deal with. They don't let you contact them directly (which is infuriating all by itself) and when you do finally get to someone, 98% of the time they can't or won't help you.

      Google has become a victim of its own success, a behemoth that is so desensitized that it's like a battleship cruising down a country lane...it doesn't even notice you as it ambles along, crushing everything in its path, oblivious to the fact that the tiny little humans are trying to get its attention.

      It doesn't care. It's Google. It's too big to care, it's too popular, too sought after, and too busy doing whatever it does to take notice of your petty concerns.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  20. Two points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job Google, keep it up, your business model depends on it.

    So if somebody built a browser that gave the user control of this stuff, what would happen?
        a) Everybody would flock to it and the web would be forced to follow suite
    or
        b) No site would be willing to run on it and it would die.

  21. Not enough by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    I want to disable all these stupid "dynamic HTML" ads. I also don't want to video ads because even if they're not auto-playing they could be pre-loading the video file in the background, wasting bandwidth.

    1. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then install a blocker and privacy guard. You'll soon have a near ad-free browsing experience. Any site you frequent that serves shit, block the <div>, and you'll never see crap in that space again.

  22. So...... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "...killed 780 million bad ads"

    So they got about 10% of them, is that what they're saying?

    It's nice to know, but it's not really a problem for me, since I use Adblock and Noscript.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  23. Not mentioned... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    No mention of "politically unreliable" messages having gone missing. Yet.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  24. I killed 99% of all ads by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    With my Ad Blocker.

  25. & yet they can't seem to police trojans for ch by greggman · · Score: 1
  26. "bad" ads ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    There a non-bad ads?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  27. Except the ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that they serve in front of the top-ranking sites that you actually searched for? Including the spam advertiser links they seve above their own pages when you search for "Google Hangouts"? Google is nothing but another spamware / malware company these days. They have animation and popups on their homepage. They have gone to shit.

  28. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get past dns blocks
    12.) Keep off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing (adblock & hardcoded favs)
    14.) Works on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) EZ data control
    16.) Block ads better vs. addons more efficiently

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN operation (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially). Even FireFox 41 adblock eats 65++mb http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in slower usermode (w/ more messagepassing overhead + context switch vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    & Installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

  29. For the best adblocker (& far more)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  30. For the best adblocker (& more) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  31. For the best adblocker (& more)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  32. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get by dns blocks
    12.) Keep off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Ez data control
    16.) Block ads better than addons more efficiently

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less vs. hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons used via native browser methods!

    ---

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slow mode of operation (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Its installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ... apk

  33. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get past dns blocks
    12.) Keep off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing (adblock & hardcoded favs)
    14.) Works on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) EZ data control
    16.) Block ads better vs. addons more efficiently

    * ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN operation (as 1st resolver).

    ---

    Ab+'s a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts use 3-11mb w/ my program initially). Even FireFox 41 adblock eats 65++mb http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons via native browser methods!

    ---

    Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    ---

    Ab+ adds complexity in slower usermode (w/ more messagepassing overhead + context switch vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...

    ---

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    & Installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

  34. Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C talk
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get by dns blocks
    12.) Keep off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Ez data control
    16.) Block ads better than addons more efficiently

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all + hosts = on devices natively.

    APK

    P.S.=> UBlock does less vs. hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver):

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    ---

    ClarityRay defeats it seeing addons used via native browser methods!

    ---

    UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slow mode of operation (usermode = more messagepassing overhead vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    ---

    What's best?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified its source is safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Its installer -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ... apk

  35. FF can't stop hosts files (not browser addon) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: For the BEST custom hosts file-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  36. Disable all ads & threats online via hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: For the BEST custom hosts file -> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  37. For the best custom hosts file? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  38. Hosts files kill ALL ads & threats... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: For the BEST custom hosts file-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  39. Mozilla can't stop hosts files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: For the BEST custom hosts file -> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

    1. Re:Mozilla can't stop hosts files by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Were we not just saying the other day that APK had been so quite lately that we thought he must have been locked in a padded cell at last? We were wrong.

      FWIW, I have used a hosts file for some years, but I don't know how anyone can make an issue out of it

  40. I made a program for it, not an issue of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Glad to see you use hosts too along w/ ~200++ or so others here I know of - they work (better, faster, & more efficiently than browser addons + with more abilities for more speed, security, reliability & anonymity).

    * :)

    I merely made a program for sorting, deduplicating, & populating a hosts with protective + speed adding data for users to empower them to do so EASILY as possible - for bringing it "to the masses" in GUI form...

    However:

    I never "made an issue of it": That's what trolls around here have done, not I, but to their own dismay & failure vs. myself...

    APK

    P.S.=> ... Since hosts do FAR more w/ FAR less resources consumed, using what you already natively have present in your IP stack operating in faster kernelmode vs. slower usermode for addons? I "spank them" easily based on those facts every single time!

    ... apk

  41. Via hosts files there's no ads (or threats) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home.

    It not ONLY fixes DNS' many security issues, it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have per my subject above!

    Firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk