sizzlemctwizzle on 'Userscripts.org in 2008' @ Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:38:43 +0000

@nungryscproI understand there are legit scripts that contain "cookie" but that's how the sytem used to be set up. I had one of my scripts initially unlisted and had to get it listed by the staff all because I had to reference "cookie.gif" First of all their is no staff. Jesse is the only active admin. This is a community driven site. It is up to those of us who understand javascript to be on the lookout and warn people in comments if a script is malicious and it is up to users to take the time to look at the comments to see if a script has been called malicious. Also the install count isn't entirely truthful. You need to install a script to raise its install count. Hell 4.66% of traffic a month is by those who have IE6. Under the old system there were 0 cookie grabbing scripts for keyword "neopets". How many scripts were there for neopets? I know there are also scripts that aren't malicious that access "document.cookie" but are there going to be that many that the staff will have to list manually? Yes there would. Jesse is just one man. He would have to sit in front of a computer all day listing scripts. There are literally thousands of legit scripts that use "document.cookie". Hell 3 out of my 16 scripts use it. They already have it set up so that when you visit the source code, the script is parsed for syntax highlighting. Highlighting is done on the client-side. Checking for document.cookie would have to be done on the server-side. The bottom line is that it is just totally impractical to manually approve every script that contains document.cookie. What happens when someone uploads a new version? Do we have to wait for that to be approved before it is listed again? Let's not turn Userscripts.org into Addons.mozilla.org