Topic: Signature Adblock Script [0.5.0] - page 4. (Read 37472 times)
thanks for this adblock script.
Great work. Been looking for a program like this. Sorry if this is offensive Mr Admin, but is there an antivirus scan available for this
The Rollin.io signature for Members isn't blocked with the current implementation:
Quote
I no longer rent my space I give it away to people or websites I like.
It is simple and I make 0 from it.
Same here. I now advertise for Bitmixer.io for free, just because I love their service.
Awesome. No more signatures to be seen 
Great job mate!
Great job mate!
Says the person who is wearing a paid signature....
Awesome. No more signatures to be seen
Great job mate!
Great job mate!
I no longer rent my space I give it away to people or websites I like.
It is simple and I make 0 from it.
I do think signatures have a lot of problems.
I have a hundred pm's from people wanting to sign me up rent my space and I no longer will do it.
Full disclosure I made about 5 btc since april 2014.
But I resent being hounded by signature campaign managers.
I won't let this happen to me. I won't be used by a scammer. I think the campaigns could be put to rest.
This thread link shows my last signature campaign.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1050347.0;all
Ended up modifying mine a bit - instead of a true/false return in the function, I ended up returning the score.
If the score is below 50 points, it's left untouched.
If the score is above 50 points and below 300 points (just under that of the most egregious ads), the opacity is modified based on how close it is to that 300 points. So if you've got a signature that's just over 100, it'll just be reduced in opacity but not entirely gone. The signature is also placed in a new table (could use divs), with the actual score shown on the right, so that score thresholds can be more easily tweaked).
If the score is at or above 300 points, it doesn't just make the signature invisible, it removes it and the horizontal rule above it outright (making it as if the person had no signature at all) and also replaces the user's avatar and tagline, as most of the people who are using signature campaign ads that score that high are using that space to advertise as well.
If the score is below 50 points, it's left untouched.
If the score is above 50 points and below 300 points (just under that of the most egregious ads), the opacity is modified based on how close it is to that 300 points. So if you've got a signature that's just over 100, it'll just be reduced in opacity but not entirely gone. The signature is also placed in a new table (could use divs), with the actual score shown on the right, so that score thresholds can be more easily tweaked).
If the score is at or above 300 points, it doesn't just make the signature invisible, it removes it and the horizontal rule above it outright (making it as if the person had no signature at all) and also replaces the user's avatar and tagline, as most of the people who are using signature campaign ads that score that high are using that space to advertise as well.
| Before: | After: | |
 |  |
fixed.
Confirmed it works as expected now. Thanks!
New version: https://bitcointalk.blob.core.windows.net/scripts/bct_adblock.user.js
One suggestion: Could you include "action=pm*" besides "topic=*" on the next version of the script? Removing the annoying signatures from private messages too would be great
addedThis post has a non transparent signature, while this one, by the same user, hasn't. There must be something in the first page that isn't there in the second. My firefox says:
I'm using the readable code from #53.
fixed. It was caused by font-size that weren't in pt (didn't know that was possible in smf). I also added support for html font sizes. Code:
TypeError: element.style.fontSize.match(...) is null
Stack trace:
calculateFormattingScore@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:76:5
calculateFormattingScore/score<@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:104:9
calculateFormattingScore@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:106:1
isAd@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:113:3
@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:125:1
I'm using the readable code from #53.
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Then you need the signature campaign blocker (Blocks every user that is participating or willing to participate in a signature campaign)
And the difference between that and the software listed here is...?
Its an incredible piece of software that can distinguish between those that are willing to participate and those who dont. You dont even have to actually wear a paid signature. It just knows. It uses cutting edge AI technology to achieve this and has nothing to do with the fantastic work grue has done here.
Can we stop feeding the trolls now?
If they really, really wanted to exclude anyone's posts who would even consider wearing a paid signature then you could do the above plus add a blockchain parser/analyzer that can find the likely alts of anyone wearing a paid signature and ignore those posts as well.
I mean isnt that what people really is pissed about? The actual posts from people participating in signature campaings and not the signature itself. Because im fairly sure no one really cares seeing the signatures, i honestly dont care but of course the problem would be that if you block everyone that has a signature then you would block valuable members who do post useful stuff
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Then you need the signature campaign blocker (Blocks every user that is participating or willing to participate in a signature campaign)
And the difference between that and the software listed here is...?
Its an incredible piece of software that can distinguish between those that are willing to participate and those who dont. You dont even have to actually wear a paid signature. It just knows. It uses cutting edge AI technology to achieve this and has nothing to do with the fantastic work grue has done here.
Can we stop feeding the trolls now?
If they really, really wanted to exclude anyone's posts who would even consider wearing a paid signature then you could do the above plus add a blockchain parser/analyzer that can find the likely alts of anyone wearing a paid signature and ignore those posts as well.
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Then you need the signature campaign blocker (Blocks every user that is participating or willing to participate in a signature campaign)
And the difference between that and the software listed here is...?
Its an incredible piece of software that can distinguish between those that are willing to participate and those who dont. You dont even have to actually wear a paid signature. It just knows. It uses cutting edge AI technology to achieve this and has nothing to do with the fantastic work grue has done here.
Can we stop feeding the trolls now?
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Then you need the signature campaign blocker (Blocks every user that is participating or willing to participate in a signature campaign)
And the difference between that and the software listed here is...?
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Then you need the signature campaign blocker (Blocks every user that is participating or willing to participate in a signature campaign)
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
I do want to see signatures. What I don't want to see is signature campaigns.
Actually, there is a feature in the forum where you cam disable it. So the tool would be useless...
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
Goto Profile- Look and Layout Preferences - Dont show users signatures
This post has a non transparent signature, while this one, by the same user, hasn't. There must be something in the first page that isn't there in the second. My firefox says:
I'm using the readable code from #53.
Code:
TypeError: element.style.fontSize.match(...) is null
Stack trace:
calculateFormattingScore@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:76:5
calculateFormattingScore/score<@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:104:9
calculateFormattingScore@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:106:1
isAd@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:113:3
@file:///.../bct_adblock2.user.js:125:1
I'm using the readable code from #53.
One suggestion: Could you include "action=pm*" besides "topic=*" on the next version of the script? Removing the annoying signatures from private messages too would be great
One way would be to create a forum theme that contains my script. That way it's available to every user and can be enabled/disabled from the user control panel. You'll have to petition theymos to do that though.
If this was implemented then selective blocking could be used as well.
Jump to: