[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkeyed.com, userscript.org, forums, sourcecode, and the future of our community

[Michael Bierman]

Yes, I think this is a great idea. It also provides hosting for those who
don't have a place to host a script themselves and, as it says below, allows
for better and faster maintenance of scripts.  

I would also suggest that each script could include a place (perhaps another
wiki page) for wish lists, etc. so that the author(s) always have in front
of them a list of things people have requested. 

Michael Bierman



-----Original Message-----
From: greasemonkey-bounces at mozdev.org
[mailto:greasemonkey-bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf Of Thom Wetzel
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:30 AM
To: greasemonkey at mozdev.org
Subject: Re: [Greasemonkey] Greasemonkeyed.com, userscript.org, forums,
sourcecode, and the future of our community

That's an awesome idea.  It sounds like you want a wiki for the scripts 
themselves, which makes perfect sense. 

Thom



Aaron Boodman wrote:

>:-)
>
>Sorry for the dramatic post title. Actually my nit is rather quite small.
>
>I was just out taking the new beta Greasemonkey for a spin and I
>wanted to try out Greasemonkeyed.com. Fully half of the scripts I
>chose at random were broken, and not because of changes in
>Greasemonkey. Upon inspection, I found that sites had just changed
>slightly.
>
>Annotate Google [1] seems to have fallen prey to a change to the
><title> of Google's search results. I checked to see if GMaps Add
>Waypoint ever got fixed, and it hadn't. [2]
>
>The problem here is that although user scripts are easy to write, they
>are hard to maintain. Typically the original author has lost interest
>and doesn't keep them up to date.
>
>Here's where it gets interesting though: I am perfectly happy to
>update somebody else's script when it doesn't work for me. From my
>point of view, they already did the hard part. It's way easier for me
>to simply fix their script than start from scratch.
>
>But I need somewhere to put this script. And I don't want to upload it
>to my server, give it a new name, etc. It's just a tiny variation -- a
>patch -- of the original.
>
>So I propose that Greasemonkeyed.com or userscript.org or whatever
>evolve into this forum-like, flickr groups-like, deviantART-like
>community. Where people have avatars or signatures and identities that
>they care about. Where long threads of user scripts develop, each one
>an optimization, improvement, or fix on the same original idea. Where
>people can install something and be more reasonably confident that
>something will work because it was updated an hour ago.
>
>So here's a use case:
>
>* I'm browsing the scripts and run across one which adds del.icio.us
>tags to Google search results.
>* I install the script but see that it doesn't work.
>* After a quick debug, I find the assumption which was broken and fix it.
>* I go back to the site, go to the script, and click [post fix].
>Another option might be [post branch].
>* I log if not already logged in.
>* I add a little description of the fix, "Removed title check since it
>was failing. It wasn't really necessary since it was just preventing
>the code from running an xpath which would return zero results in
>cases where the title check failed."
>* I pasted my new script (or upload from local file) and press [submit].
>* Since I am a long time user, maybe my update immediately goes into
>effect. If I were a "new" user, maybe it would have to be reviewed,
>unless I were fixing my own script.
>* I go back to the page and see that my revision is posted. I can
>click [diff] to see a diff against the previous version, and also
>examine the complete revision history.
>
>This effectively makes the pool of scripts the community's property,
>not the individuals. We all keep them up to date together. It also
>reduce the amount of garbage in two ways: first, it reduces the number
>of duplicates which are just bug fixes. Second, it decreases the
>chance of a broken script staying that way for long.
>
>Of course, some people will still feel strongly about their personal
>work and not want it to become community property this way, even
>though they would always retain credit for the original
>implementation. I feel that this minority is small enough that we
>could just punt on it initially. But there could also be a checkbox on
>the submit form that allows you to disable fixing and branching.
>
>A system like this is also interesting legally. I don't recall
>anything like this ever existing before. I would imagine the rate of
>code evolution would be really quite amazing, and that you'd quickly
>see versions of scripts which look basically nothing like the
>original. "Credit" would come more for the number of fixes, knowledge,
>and visibility in the community than that one magic script idea you
>came up with.
>
>What do you guys think?
>
>I know it's rude to suggest features for projects which you aren't
>contributing to. And I really can't say when I'd have time to help on
>either of these sites. But I do feel strongly that this would really
>strengthen the community and user scripting in general.
>
>Just my random-ass thoughts.
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Greasemonkey mailing list
Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey