From 542811f41c9a6f340feeb81848e891d6ba05e780 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:54:47 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=20=C2=B5Block=20and=20others:=20Blockin?= =?UTF-8?q?g=20ads,=20trackers,=20malwares=20(markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md b/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md index 6240695..9554a17 100644 --- a/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md +++ b/µBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ -New [reference benchmark](/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark). +Hard data, not hype. + +New benchmark results coming soon. Privacy Badger will be benchmarked as well. [2014-07-21: For the record, I have ideas on how to improve the privacy-wise usefulness of the figures collated in this benchmark. So I plan to make the next run much better at gauging privacy exposure. The idea is to count the total number of **distinct pairs 1st-party/3rd-party**. This is a much better measure than the one currently used (though the one currently used is better than whatever available I have seen elsewhere.) For example, the current results do not distinguish between a blocker which allow "bad.com" only on "example.com", and another which allow "bad.com" everywhere. I want to fix that.]