[Greasemonkey] UI idea
jdunck at gmail.com
Tue Apr 5 22:51:49 EDT 2005
On Apr 5, 2005 11:25 AM, Evan Martin <evan.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>I think Jeremy's talking about using
> delicious for finding more scripts, which seems reasonable except that
> there are lots of people (like me) who don't use that site.
I'm suggesting using delicious for discovery for inclusion in the
directory. I'm doing this because delicious is there, and it's the
eBay of folksonomy, and I can get tagging on a decent scale For
Free(tm). You need not use delicious; userscript.org will gather the
data for you.
A user will also be able to submit a script to the dir using a web UI
on userscript.org. And you need not tag userscripts you submit;
others will do that for you.
> tags are the opposite of decentralized 'cause they're by definition
> only on one site.
Delicious is handling this load well, lots of people do use it, and
gee, now they have funding. I guess I could also support technorati
tagging at some point; does that make you happier? How does one tag a
user script (which is not HTML)?
> The bloggery way to track scripts would be getting trackbacks sent to
> a particular userscript.org URL when people post. But then you don't
> have any structured data available on userscript.org. I'm still not
> convinced that anything other than simply having people fill out a
> form on userscript.org is the best idea.
Sounds like a good idea; but won't people want to host user scripts on
their own servers? And I don't think many blogging software support
trackback when arbitrary files are put up. How would they trackback
> Another reason I think sending off URLs to see what matches is a bad
> idea is that it becomes sorta spywareish: sending off every URL I
> visit to some other site!
Concur, this is another reason we should be manual/obvious when tracking.
> If you really want it to have some visual indicator of whether scripts
> will apply to this page, the best I can think of is:
> - have userscript.org index all scripts, extracting their @include lines
> - have GM fetch that index every so often, like once a day
> - on each page load, iterate through the index
Hmm. I think the index could get quite large. But I like the idea of
bringing down index only occasionally.
> And it'll slow down as more scripts are created. With a more
> restricted @include language you could make the indexing faster, I
I'd prefer to deal with that problem when its a problem.
More information about the Greasemonkey