Updatezorzded

[Alpaca]

So, I've installed two SMF updates, one right after the other, so we should be patched and secure and all that good stuff.

If anybody notices any new issues, please mention them here. Thanks!

[ivor]

Thanks Alpaca!

[Alpaca]

Google Analytics code has been updated to the newest, most exciting version. This should not effect anybody's experience in anyway, but you might like to know.

If I broke something, tell me, please.

[Alpaca]

Due to the tendency here to have discussions a bit more in-depth than at other, more "default" fora, I've tweaked the hot/very hot topic thresholds to 25 and 50 posts, respectively. (The old numbers were 15 and 25.)

[Griffin NoName]

Hee Hee, that should make the jjj threads stand out

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Google Analytics code has been updated to the newest, most exciting version. This should not effect anybody's experience in anyway, but you might like to know.

If I broke something, tell me, please.

Alas, google analytics is one of the MAJOR servers of internet ads and other unwanted junk.

So, due to that, I have blocked google-analytics.com with NoScript add on.

If anyone can show me otherwise [vis-a-vis ad delivery], I will re-enable it.

Unfortunately, NoScript does not permit site-specific enabling of top-level blocking-- that is, I cannot simply inform NoScript to enable GA when visiting TM, and block it otherwise.

[Alpaca]

Really? GA actually is the one serving the ads?

I know that if you're an adsense user, GA has functionality to monitor the success of your campaign or whatever the jargon is now (web 2.0 newspeak changes about once a week, as far as I can tell), but I thought the ads themselves came from a different place.

I admit I'm spoiled when it comes to ads - I use this in conjunction with this to filter out my ads, so I let my Google domains roam free and use NoScript to banninate things that look suspicious. (By the way, the new permanent untrusted list is an awesome, awesome feature.)

Anyway, I'll look into it and see if GA itself serves the ads, although you're probably right.

Note that as a temporary measure, Noscript has a "temporarily allow all on this page" option now, but I realize that's pretty cumbersome to use when navigating a forum. Not a big deal, anyway - I use GA statistics as more of a "get a of activity" tool than as any sort of strict measurement of anything.

[Griffin NoName]

I use my firewall to bliock ads. Not just the generalised ad block feature, but tweaking it as well where the ad block feature is insufficient. Works well for me. Gives me a feeling of power

[Alpaca]

Test site:

http://www.theanneshow.com/

Chosen because I know she uses Google ads, and I know she uses Analytics.

Procedure: Disable adblock on her site. See ads.
Block google-analytics with Noscript. Continue to see ads.
Block googlesyndication. Ads disappear.
Allow google-analytics. Ads still absent.
Allow googlesyndication. Ads reappear.

Are you sure it's Analytics that's serving them? Can you point me to a place where that happens?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Test site:

http://www.theanneshow.com/

Chosen because I know she uses Google ads, and I know she uses Analytics.

Procedure: Disable adblock on her site. See ads.
Block google-analytics with Noscript. Continue to see ads.
Block googlesyndication. Ads disappear.
Allow google-analytics. Ads still absent.
Allow googlesyndication. Ads reappear.

Are you sure it's Analytics that's serving them? Can you point me to a place where that happens?

Well, if you're gonna get all scientifical about it.... 

I suppose I had taken a "brute force approach" when it came to ads, in that I only enabled enough servers to see the content I wanted to see, and ignored the rest.

Your approach seems to indicate that GA does not serve the actual ads themselves, but is used to track the traffic of a given user for the purpose of serving user-specific ads.  That is, GA seems to track your web movements and choices, to enable custom delivery of targeted ads.   Or so I've been told.

I may try enabling GA for awhile and see if my web experience is affected-- I really don't care if some nebulous computer somewhere tracks my internet surf habits.

But I mightily resent paying (by bandwidth hogging) for that.   It's the main reason why I block ads in the first place-- I don't wanna pay the bandwidth to get'em on my pc.   I long ago learned how to just ignore'em...

As for adblock?  That's one more thingy to run on a low-horsepower PC. 

Heck, I don't even RUN a software firewall OR anti-virus anymore.

I sit behind a hardware firewall, superior in every way to a software one.

As for the antivirus?  My e-mail habits are firmly established:  I never, EVER, open attachments that I'm not expecting.   I just delete'em, and send an E-mail to the sender, "did you mean to send me blah-blah-blah?"

Unless they send a separate E-mail saying they're sending an attachment...

Furthermore, if I am downloading something I'm not 100% sure of, I simply go to an on-line virus scanner, and scan the download folder, after the download is complete.  Easy, simple and quick.  And nothing running in the background, hogging my precious CPU cycles.... 

"We gotta preserve our precious CPU cycles.....from the evils of Florine."

_{(points to whomever gets the obscure movie reference...)}

[Alpaca]

Database tables have been optimized and "unimportant logs" cleared out, whatever that means.



The forum should be marginally less taxing on the server and marginally quicker, but in all honesty, I doubt you'll notice any performance increase. You'll have to keep speeding it up with your quick wits.

[Griffin NoName]

FYI  "googlesyndication" blocked in firewall has always got rid of pretty much everything for me.

And I always block referal cookies......... IMO they shoiuld be illegal !

Bob, why do you reply to non-solicited unknown attachment emails?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

FYI  "googlesyndication" blocked in firewall has always got rid of pretty much everything for me.

And I always block referal cookies......... IMO they shoiuld be illegal !

Bob, why do you reply to non-solicited unknown attachment emails?

Only if it's from someone I actually know-- if they reply back that they did NOT send the E-mail, I inform them they've been hijacked, and need to have their computer de-zombified.

Many of my e-mail "people" are pretty much computer-illiterate.  So, I help out when I can. 

[Griffin NoName]

Ah!