| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
musings on forum killfilesmusings on forum killfilesPosted Nov 8, 2007 1:42 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)In reply to: LWN too? by dmarti Parent article: The Gmail Greasemonkey API
In the past I have successfully used privoxy's regex rewriting rules to completely remove the detectable presence of certain users from web forums via all web access from my network. Regex solutions are a royal pain, especially on html, and are brittle and fail when the site makes slight changes. But when it worked, the result was fantastic. Those comments simply did not exist. Of course this was on forums where the threads were purely linear (which made divergent discussion near-impossible) which made it easier to remove the unwanted items. I also accepted the brittleness and difficulty of the solution. I liked that I would have to feel it was really and truly important to silence someone from my screen, rather than having it be a trivial decision. Of course this was a fairly personal decision.
(Log in to post comments)
musings on forum killfiles Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:57 UTC (Thu) by Wummel (subscriber, #7591) [Link] Note that XPath matching is as brittle as a regular expression matcher. Both will fail when the site structure is changing. Only difference is that XPath is easier to work with in an (X)HTML world.So with regard to matcher brittleness there is no advantage using greasemonkey over a filtering proxy solution.
musings on forum killfiles Posted Nov 12, 2007 2:21 UTC (Mon) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Well, failures might be trivial style changes done in an oldworld direct-attribute way. Or sometimes even html source formatting changes, depending upon your regex. I mean, I encountered these. It was possible to create regexes to avoid suffereing from some of this, but it wasn't simple.
|
|
||||||||||||