Any chance this is in process already? If not, it would save a lot of clicking.

Re: @trespassersW:

currently there is no way to leave a positive review about a script.

Sure there is... it's called the rating.

Single-page view of issues/discussions on my scripts?

More query options will be available at a future date.

Re: @trespassersW:
The basic idea behind the current system is that anything besides a positive or negative vote is pretty pointless. Other systems use stars but that scale can mean many things to different people. Allowing comments to be attached to a review is also counter productive for everyone involved. You either get the love ("This is such a great script. I couldn't live without it.") / hate ("This script is completely useless. Not worth installing."), both of which can be captured by a simple positive/negative vote, or worse you end up with misplaced bug reports or feature requests. Just go to AMO or Google Play and it'll be clear that the vast majority of reviews are bug reports and feature requests, with the remaining being love/hate messages. Could someone write a very useful constructive review? Sure. But the reality is that it almost never happens. Even if it did, that user would have by definition some criticism so they could open an issue. If you want to be showered with praise, I'm sorry but numbers and the occasional complement in an issue will have to do.

Re: @Marti:

Regarding


"More query options will be available at a future date."

is any other information available? Is input or voting relevant?

Not sure it's a relevant point of comparison, but in the time I've gotten six "Feedback" discussions (five with substantive issues) at Greasy Fork on a script hosted on both sites, I have had zero "Issues" submitted here. I'm puzzled by this and want to make sure I'm not missing something.

Re: @jscher2000:

The current state of all of our issues can be found at https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/issues just like the other guy has his. I'm still personally contemplating your request and comparing to existing structures. USO never had the ability you are asking for... however notifications are probably an area to concentrate on soon though. There is a saying of getting it done versus getting it done right... I prefer to think that OUJS is choosing the latter. There are also some stalling issues with GM, and the rest of the user.js engines right now, but hopefully those will be milestone complete later this month that will affect everyone.

Re: @Marti:

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the updates. I'm just trying to stay on top of things in an efficient manner to provide good customer service.

In the USO days, these are what I used:

(1) Email notifications for discussion posts on my scripts. That might have been a relatively recent feature: the earliest one I found in my deleted messages was from 4/5/2013 (subject line starts with Posting:). I'm not so bored at work that I want an immediate email notification of a post. I wouldn't mind checking:

(2) A page called "Discussions on your scripts" at http://userscripts.org/home/comments that was handy for monitoring new and updated topics across all my scripts. In the context of this site, this does seem to be a kind of discussion filter. I'm not sure if there is a specific issue open for it. #199 seems related but not focused on the logged-in user's scripts in particular. I may be missing other issues; I find GitHub a little bewildering.

Re: @jscher2000:

In the context of this site, this does seem to be a kind of discussion filter. I'm not sure if there is a specific issue open for it. #199...

Could be related. I'll do what I can when I can to implement something down the line... however there are currently some more pressing matters at the moment that are out of my control at the moment. Since you have a whole four scripts here to check it doesn't seem to be too terribly lengthy, at the moment, to check those... but I understand where you are going with this request.

Re: @TimidScript:

Is there a way to get the actual number of people who voted...

It is currently a summation of up and downs... so in short no... and in long is the community trending one way or the other with your script... see below color references.

as then it will give you a more accurate picture of the rating of the script.

Seems more like a stalking type option. ;)... because I can foresee the next request on saying "who did it" e.g. blame.

list the number of open issues on the scripts listing, instead of clicking on the script page to find out the number

Perhaps... that is another possible query option. :)

does the Rating's gray bar represent anything else?

Which grey?

You can currently use the following logic:

  • light grey = fuzzy with your script e.g. room for improvement possibly.
  • dark grey = doing well with your script from the community.
  • red = you have a more serious issue with your script that OUJS has identified.

Re: @TimidScript:

Is there a way to get the actual number of people who voted

I stand corrected... we have a CSS glitch that "hides" the number of votes... it's in the DOM with the "grey" bar. I'll need to spend some more quality time with this portion to diagnose what is going on here. I can understand your confusion too.

Re: @Marti:

... Application wise that is looking... we'll still look at all script source to find malware if it exists in everyones script.

Re: @Marti:

I didn't intend to suggest that my hackish code might be of any value for the site. I seriously doubt it would be.

But I think I disagree with you on the BSD 3-clause license: it has long been considered GPL-compatible and I can't think of any reason for that to have changed with version 3.

Re: @jscher2000:

It's compatible as a module however the way you've done it isn't... usually those are done with pull requests on GitHub (GH). I'm still reading up on Affero GPL that might alleviate any perceived issue in the future. GM via Fx is technically a "server" I believe. Your script appears to be a good short term workaround... I'll try it out in a day or two. Thanks.