sizzle Root

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: @devnull1969:
Yeah I just need to set the session maxAge to some value (probably two weeks). Right now it lasts as long as a session cookie.


Ah the first discussion. I stayed up all night rushing to finish this feature.



I researched it but it seemed like more of a pain than its worth. If anyone else wants to set one up, by all means, have at it. I'd be happy to logon and use it.


Re: @JRI:
Thanks. I appreciate any time you can spare (I added you to one of our teams on GH). It's a good start. I did a minor edit, but I should be able to do more tomorrow.


Re: @JRI:

I really like your ideas and something like this needs to exist. I've created an issue. We do have a wiki if you'd like to get started now. I'm sure there are others, like myself, who would definitely contribute.






The portion of script urls that contained a value derived from the @namespace metadata value of scripts has been removed. Don't worry, the old links that you might have shared somewhere will still work.



Re: @trespassersW:
trespassersW

Fixed. I posted this image with:

<img src="https://i.imgur.com/LFRKMhl.png" alt="trespassersW" title="trespassersW" />





We're going to stop using the @namespace for identification soon (currently waiting on the site redesign), so this will be fixed then and you'll be able to change your namespace.


So to summarize Coldblackice's endless ramblings and martyrdom: we should count replies (not comments), add email-based user registration, and allow the removal of authentication methods from an account. I'll think about it.

But I don't doubt you'll try to continue to stir up more shit since that is clearly your goal (although I fully expect a long-winded diatribe to the contrary). Goodbye.


My guess is

I welcome anyone to give feedback about the site and convince us how we could change it to make it better. The site is built by a community, not one man. But I will not engage someone who insinuates hidden motives behind our design decisions. I consider this a blatant attempt at character assassination. Either change your tone if your motives are genuine, or gtfo.


Now we only can see the list of most downloaded scripts.

Actually they're sorted by a combination of criteria. First the highest rating, then most recently updated, and finally the install count.

More sort urls:
updated
rating
installs
name
author
flags


Do I need to be concerned that OpenUserJS.org has retained anything that could ever compromise my Google account?

We receive an identification value from authenticators (doesn't matter if its OpenID, OAuth, OAuth2), but we then hash that value (except GitHub since we provide integration) and that is what we store and use to authenticate you in the future. That is all we keep. You can check our source and verify if you like.


Are you changing the @name or @namespace values, because that is how we identify scripts.