Auto-selection, clearer use of filters and Userscript idea


New Member

Sorry, not sure where to submit this post, but I guess here is the best I can find.

I notice that AdGuard has a set of 'recommended' filters (the ones with little stars next to them in the filters list).

It might be good (and you could put a warning notice upfront perhaps) just to have a thing that says, 'install all recommended filters' and highlights and adds those.

That doesn't mean that they could not add more or remove from that list, but I think for someone who knows nothing, that might be good idea, but this is an instant action for people who might not have a clue, not install any, and then think, wow, this is rubbish, it doesn't do anything. I had not realised until I really gave time to it the amazing filtering, like 'I don't care about cookies' that I always had installed as a separate thing before. And it is a long list, I would not expect someone just using this as a background thing to get on with their lives, to go through all of them and make decisions on a one line thing. I do take an interest, but not sure if you know how many people either never add any or always add everything (at least at first).

Also, I think that you should make more clear that the 'mobile list' is for mobile devices, maybe with a pop up appearing; and the one for DNS filtering optimisation, to highlight that people really should press this one if they are using the DNS filtering, or even put that 'filter' option as something that detects the device you are using (or offers to, in the first case) or is next to the section where you put DoT, DoH or DoQ (is that one now?) so that it is obviously enabled (or even autoenable, if it is significant that you do that). I'm not even sure why you would not activate, e.g. DoH by default, rather than nothing (is there are a reason why people should not use this, unless a company/group policy prevents it?). I can't imagine parents would be intercepting communications, which is the only obvious legitimate reason I would think that I would leave it off? Again, most people do not know about the significance of these things, and will not be looking around for them to make sure that the settings are perfect, so something like that makes a lot of sense.

Plus, maybe in the list of languages, you could group those things together that apply to a particular region (either in a submenu/divided section or just next to each other. There's Polish ones in different places, and it is a) difficult to know the difference when a person doesn't know about these things (who is Fanboy? and why do I trust EasyPrivacy?, etc.), and b) a person might want to have one but not lots of them, but it is quite easy to see (or miss) the recommended one, but then enable another that isn't - and how someone would know to prefer one over the other, I'm not sure. Perhaps you could have something on the assistant that flashes on a Polish (I pick on this language but I mean any language, or even on Facebook if they are using the font killer, etc) that if they have a problem with viewing things, they might want to temporarily switch to another blocking list and see if it makes any difference? That would make it far more useful to regular people and be a neat benefit for people who get annoyed with these blockers for the 'one thing' that lets them down.

Even more so, it's possible that you could have a 'site diagnostic' thing in the assistant (I prefer chatbots, but even just a decision tree/flowchart thing) that when you get to a 'broken page', you can select something in the assistant that takes the user through some diagnostic steps (and can offer to report the results to AdGuard), so that rather than saying 'switch off for 30 seconds', it says 'are you having problems with [then a hierarchy, I do not know what these might look like], say:

no graphical layout, just text*
tables skewed
images overlap text
odd character set (e.g. wingdings)
no text on page
no text on header/buttons
continuously playing
cannot see preview
cannot play at all

* of course this and others might be normal, for instance, one might think that of an XML/RSS page, even though it might be right. In the case of an XML/RSS type page though, you can easily say, yeah, that's that kind of page. OR if it's one with no HTML formatting instructions, or broken instructions, or where the settings on the PC require, say HTML to be enabled but that has been switched off to render HTML2, or (more likely), thinks like viewer installations. A lot of this sounds like it is me talking about non-ad stuff, but it is the thing that I think lets a lot of people down with these ad blockers. I know for me, that when uMatrix was around (It's been discontinued), I loved the power of it, to control everything, although it was not usable by the average person who did not know or did not (as I did) take the time to experiment with it. However, it did mean that I got used to excluding things I wanted and did not want, and it is fairly simple to put an interface on to at least indicate (and if people are sharing with Adguard this information) for you to build the ultimate filter set.

I also know people who just go through the options list and click everything (not necessarily adguard, like everything, they just think that they should enable everything, and yeah, I know that's stupid), and it is only when they go back and it says, you have too many filters, that they think, crap now I have to go through that whole list and figure out what I don't need.

In addition, there are a couple of things that say 'this is already included in...'. If it is already in another thing, is it something that will install twice and slow things down if you select it, or will it just ignore it

Also, maybe it is possible to have an 'Adguard' curated 'Userscript of the Month'. Possible this would need some legal notice to protect you, but to get started with these, it would be good to have the confidence of the Adguard name next to them. You could run competitions for userscripts potentially, so long as clear in these cases that you do not have a conflict of interest.