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

As for your other points:

Please give us the option of an email/user login.

I've ranted about why I don't want this elsewhere, so unless a lot of users request it or the other developers come to a consensus that I'm wrong: no.

Further, please give us the ability to remove site authentications from our accounts.

What is your rationale for this feature? Why would you need to do this?

For forum threads, the "Comments" indicator should not count the first post as a "comment"

Umm.. it's counting comments. Why wouldn't it count the first one? It doesn't say "Replies" so it isn't misleading. I never got the point of counting replies anyway. I don't care if it's non-standard. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, it stays.

Currently, it appears like this stacking is being done to pad out the site, making it look more full than it actually is.

Nope, not the reason. That's just how the web designer I was working with when I initially created the site decided to style it.

He's right. This script uses 3 userscripts.org @requires and with that site down, this script can't be installed.

Most of your points are valid but will be made irrelevant once the site redesign is complete: https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/issues/103

I highly doubt some spammer is going to know or care about your script.

But if you're really worried, post the original source somewhere else. Like a private gist on GitHub. And then use an @require in the meta of your script to point to the real source. I doubt the spammer knows enough about GreaseMonkey to detect this.

If you don't make the original source viewable to us, I will have to remove your script.

Just testing issue creation.

The site is currently being re-designed. I can confirm that the new issues page won't have this problem.

Hence, this is why I released my code for OUJS under the GPL from the start. It is forever GPL. No one can pull a US.o and make it closed source, which is possible with MIT and several other open source licenses.

If it's something I really care about and want others to share their modifications, I use GPL. For libraries I use LGPL so others can use it with their non-GPL code, but still have to share any modifications made to the library itself. When all I want is attribution, I use MIT. And when I really don't care what happens to my code I release it into the public domain.

As Marti mentioned, OUJS doesn't need those metadata keys to send updates and respond to update checks. It uses another method supported by all user script engines with updating capabilities. Also as Marti said, if you want your scripts to update from here, omit those keys from your scripts.

We may add version history somewhere down the line...

Not yet, sorry. But I suggest you put your scripts in a repo on GitHub and then go to this page and import your scripts. Follow the instructions to set up a webhook on that repo, so that your scripts stay in sync with your GH changes.

How on earth did you manage to forget that?

I didn't forget. It just wasn't a priority. I had a ton features that I needed to implement from scratch in about three months time and I was the only server-side developer. I didn't expect so many users to hop aboard the OUJS-train this early.

is there a way for ... (... you guys) to change my username?

One downside of using a NoSQL (MogoDB) database is that some data has to be stored in multiple places for efficiency (since we can't do table joins). Usernames are one of these things. Your username is all over the place and I haven't wrote the code to changer it in everywhere it's stored yet. Sorry...

But you're right, I did add it the that group when I was testing the feature.

Textarea Keyboard Shortcuts shouldn't be part of https://openuserjs.org/group/Github

Technically it works on GitHub since GH supports a subset of HTML that the script uses for formatting. I just need to add a Markdown mode.

Wow... I really need to implement comment editing/previewing. This is driving me nuts.

Wish I could attend :)

I wish you could have too. Our audience was pretty under-whelming. It would have been nice to have have someone who could appreciate what we achieved.

Hey now... I'm still trying to find that user.js to do my laundry soon... I'm running out of clean clothes! ;)

That's on topic, even if it is silly.

Moderators and higher should have the ability to "clean up" the groups if they see something awry.

Yeah, I think this makes more sense. We also need the ability to move a discussion from one category to another. That way when someone starts an off-topic discussion in one of the specific categories, we can move it to the general area.

Don't be mad, it's only a suggestion.

Not mad, just trying to be very clear. I'm strongly against modifying scripts uploaded to the site. It is their work and I don't think we have to right to change it.

At least you could add standard Metadata Userscript template to a "new script" page.

That I can do (I might even let users save a custom template). Although I'd need to add a "Clear" button so that authors can easily paste their whole script in.

Also the problem begins if a person downloaded a script or imported it or just plainly copied it from other PC (just saying).

Yes, that was my rationale for creating those metadata keys in the first place. If a script author wants to make sure a script is updated from somewhere, they should add the proper keys themselves.

Is it correct that I can't delete scripts from other moderators?

You're not a moderator. You're an admin. So yes you can remove content posted by moderators. You can't remove content posted by someone with the same user role or above (for you this is "Founding Father" and "Root").

And it isn't possible to remove scripts from groups yet, right?

No, it isn't. I'm debating whether I should add this feature or not. Can you give me a reason why you'd post a script to the site, add it to a group, and then somewhere down the line decide to remove it from that group? I can only see myself adding to groups, not removing from them.

You don't need to host them. I'm suggesting to at least add fields for configuring script meta block ( title/description/version/author )

Could you automatically add .meta.js (as updateURL) and .user.js (as installURL) to script code or at least show users created URLS.

No. I refuse to modify a script in any way. If you're a script author you should know how to modify the metadata directly. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Those metadata values (@updateURL/@downloadURL), which I created btw, are absolutely not needed for updating with scripts installed from this site. Anthony suggests that we not use them, and actually somewhat regrets their existence since updating should "just work".

there are anchor name attributes for header tags!!!

Yes anchors are automatically generated for all header tags. I knew you would like that. I just need to put an image in the actual anchor so you can easily copy the anchor link.

Also I can create good front-end effects with js if you need some.

I suggest you put them in a user script (with @grant none) and we'll add them to the site if we like them. Plus we can easily give you feedback as well, and others can fork it. It's probably easier then trying to build and run the site locally.

Oh I found edit mode, I think it would be good to have some user menu or dashboard on every page.

We were thinking of having a button to add a new script on pages with scripts.

And in possible future also add screenshots

I really don't want to host images. I don't want to be legally responsible for images people post. There are plenty of image hosting sites (I use imgur).

Also Why do you only create .user.js and not .meta.js

We have .meta.js, it just isn't on the same path like US.o. Example: https://openuserjs.org/meta/sizzle/sizzlemctwizzle/The_GM_config_Unit_Test.meta.js

meta.js is better for bandwidth and version checks...

We've got this covered already. Greasemonkey, Tampermonkey, and Violentmonkey all send a special header value when they check for updates. We detect this value and serve up the meta instead of the script source.

I'll also suggest to add a vote and report or spam buttons, to fix a lot of bad stuff that are problematic at userscripts.org...

As I stated here, discussions are an alpha feature. There's a lot still missing. I'll get on that very soon.