Filter issues MUST NOT be reported here. Read first: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
[URL(s) for issue on a specific site are mandatory]



[Screenshot(s) for visual issues are mandatory]
Just open https://www.youtube.com and you will see. There are other site also where the blank space is displayed sorry because i was not listing all of them. Test this on "Private Window" because store data may change result
[If you fail to provide this info, I will mark the issue as invalid. Lists all settings which differs from default settings]
My filters, uBlock filters – Badware risks, uBlock filters – Unbreak​​​​, ​uBlock Protector List, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List, Fanboy’s Annoyance List, Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list
Anti popads.net, Clickbait Blocklist, Fanboy's Indian, Overlay Blocker,
Subscription, that block sites with skimming scripts, Adguard English, Adguard Annoyances, Adguard Spyware
By design: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Does-uBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them%3F#cosmetic-filters
I must say is more visible lately.
Yes, after switching to webext pure css filters that were before flicker free now often lags behind and you can see elements before they are hidden. I guess we will have to live with it.
So ublock should report this on Bugzilla because this is a problem for efficiency.
By design:
For Google search page and Youtube, there are specific cosmetic filters, so it's not by design -- it would be by design if we were dealing with generic cosmetic filters.
I haven't experience such flickering on my side.
My filters, uBlock filters – Badware risks, uBlock filters – Unbreak​​​​, ​uBlock Protector List, EasyPrivacy, Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List, Fanboy’s Annoyance List, Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list
There is your issue: please do not un-check "uBlock filters", there is absolutely no good reasons to do so, unless you want to sabotage uBO I would say, not only the filters in there are optimized for uBO, this is also where all the anti-blocker filters reside.
@gorhill can you explain this, please:
On https://www.dobreprogramy.pl/Juz-po-wakacjach-a-WiFi-w-Pendolino-nadal-nie-ma,News,82964.html
UBO reset to default + Fanboy’s Annoyance List + POL,POL + https://www.kiboke-studio.hr/i-dont-care-about-cookies/abp/ + update lists
Firefox ESR (also 55.0.2)
UBO 1.14.7rc0 legacy
Firefox Nightly
UBO 1.14.7rc0 webext
Of course, may be just nightly quirk :/
Thank you.
I'm not saying that what is documented at https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Does-uBlock-block-ads-or-just-hide-them%3F#cosmetic-filters is no longer true -- it's just as relevant now as it was before, webext or legacy.
I am saying that OP's specific issue (Google and Youtube) does not exist if "uBlock filters" are enabled, so I am not going to waste time investigating a non-issue.
Whether you run Firefox 55 or Nightly, it's the same uBO code. If you have specifics which are unrelated to the issue here, open a new issue and I will look into it. The way Firefox is configured may matter (servo? out-of-process? etc.)
@gwarser I tried your steps, and I couldn't see a difference on my side, nothing flickered -- not that I was not expecting it given that cookie notices and social buttons are typically generic cosmetic filters, but there was no flicker in both FF55 and FF57 on my side. Of course reloading the page to test again is pointless because after the first load the formerly generic cosmetic filters are cached as specific cosmetic filters. I did restart Nightly to try again, still no flickering.
You have other extensions on Nightly along uBO?
I tested with addons disabled, and only first page load after restart (no caching). Now rechecked with and without servo and no change.
Edit:
I willl try changing e10s
Edit:
New profile, e10s enabled/disabled - no change.
@gorhill I can reproduce the issue, like I said after switching to webext it started to happen. But I don't have clear STR, it happens from time to time. I might try latter to figure out how to reproduce it reliably and report back.
Open a new issue if you want to report STR, the issue here is not valid: in 2014, specific cosmetic filters were created to avoid the issue in OP, so disabling those filters was not a valid case. I can't use the issue here as a reference for code change, so if you want something to be investigated/fixed (if possible at all) because things have worsened relative to legacy, a new issue is required.