jscher2000 / Google Hit Hider by Domain (Search Filter / Block Sites)

It is a difficult question to answer, since you do not need to register to use the script. Upon installation or first run, the script makes a request to my webserver for a file (either an image or a script). I keep track of those requests.

This is the information I have for 2014, for installations from Greasy Fork, OpenUserJS, and userscripts.org combined:

1/1/2014-3/31/2014: estimated 7,642 new and upgrade installations

4/1/2014-6/30/2014: estimated 3,400 new and upgrade installations

This script had a lot of external links to userscripts.org which are now broken, which may explain the significant drop in installations.

Re: @jscher2000:

One feature at a time... watching/favoriting/liking or whatever terminology will be used will come eventually. Patience Sir Jefferson. :)

Re: @Marti: Happy to hear it's working for you.

Liking is like a very easy form of feedback; not so informative for the author, but any feedback is better than none.

Re: @jscher2000: Updated stats:

1/1/2014-3/31/2014: estimated 7,642 new and upgrade installations
4/1/2014-6/30/2014: estimated 3,400 new and upgrade installations
7/1/2014-9/30/2014: estimated 3,619 new and upgrade installations
10/1/2014-12/31/2014: estimated 3,422 new and upgrade installations

(To try to avoid counting duplicates, additional installations during the same quarter from the same IP address of the same version on the same browser brand are ignored. I cannot identify unique users or browsers so this is simply an estimate.)

Re: @jscher2000:

... try to avoid counting duplicates ...

Not sure if this is what you want from this but you may use @downloadURL in the UserScript metadata block and point it to https://openuserjs.org/src/scripts/jscher2000/Google_Hit_Hider_by_Domain_(Search_Filter_Block_Sites).user.js thus not counting updating installs on OUJS... provided the user.js engine supports it as well as no other Add-on interfering. I had to do a clean profile to determine that our serving wasn't at fault here and it's not GM's either... so one of my other bazillion add-ons calling on the server twice when it shouldn't. There is some indirect precedence for this and I have seen that with http/https as well. Hope some of this helps. :)

Re: @Marti: Hi Marti, I think 90% of the duplicate requests occur with Chrome+Tampermonkey and not Firefox+Greasemonkey (which you previously commented on in a thread on us.o). So please don't take my note as a criticism of this site!

Re: @Marti:

@Marti

Where do you get that URL from? I would like to add it to my scripts. Sounds like something that could be added automagically.

Re: @jscher2000:

So please don't take my note as a criticism of this site!

Sorry that wasn't my intended goal to invoke that sort of response... it was to let you know of a lesser known route if you wanted to use it. I'm actually rather fond of your contributions and questions. :)

Re: @chacham:

Where do you get that URL from?

It is a route (a.k.a. URI path) that @sizzle added in a while back.

I would like to add it to my scripts.

If you want to only count new installs then yes by all means publish with that. :)

Sounds like something that could be added automagically.

It could... however some authors like to control where the updates come from with consolidation to one site or another. I usually suggest leaving it blank and let the .user.js engines handle it from wherever it is installed but some people still run older versions that don't support those metadata keys automagically.