From 34bc5a0527eb47451506885a0df109f3764f971b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gorhill Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 08:43:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Dynamic filtering examples (markdown) --- Dynamic-filtering---examples.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Dynamic-filtering---examples.md b/Dynamic-filtering---examples.md index 2b6bb01..d3931f5 100644 --- a/Dynamic-filtering---examples.md +++ b/Dynamic-filtering---examples.md @@ -2,13 +2,15 @@ Dynamic filtering can be used to block much more aggressively than what would no Following are some examples of using dynamic filtering vs. not using dynamic filtering, with both scenarios using the default filter lists. The top row in each table shows the used bandwidth. +I didn't report below the comparative results without a blocker, that would be a lot of noise detracting from the main topic here, but I provide a summary of what would have happened without µBlock with default filter lists. (That is with click-to-play enabled for plugins -- it would be much worst without this.) + #### Example 1 -- An article on TechCrunch URL: The article could be read all fine with dynamic filtering. For many users it's often only what matters for most sites. -I didn't report below the results without a blocker, that would be a lot of noise detracting from the main topic here, but in summary, without µBlock enabled at all, 61 hostnames were hit, with the consumed bandwidth at 2,627,068. And that was with click-to-play enabled for plug-in (would have been much worst without this). +Without µBlock enabled at all, 61 hostnames were hit, with the consumed bandwidth at 2,627,068 bytes. | No dynamic filtering | Dynamic filtering
3rd-party `