[Greasemonkey] Question: what would happen if Greasemonkeysentthe ID of every applicable user script with each request?

Mon May 2 10:40:17 EDT 2005

Good point - I don't know if anyone watched jwz's site over the
friday-saturday, but he was mad at yahoo for changing their photos
(they added some annoying js for the popup - killing direct links).
He asked his many readers to offer an alternative site - to which a
few responded "Use greasemonkey" - some even offering scripts for gm
to fix the problem.
He basically said "That's not what I'm asking for'"  - in classic jwz
form no less.
Well, turns out yahoo! was listening and fixed the site the next day.

I don't know which side this supports more - but I don't want web
admins crippling my user experience by blocking my user script - which
usually either A) fixes their broken site - or B) adds some feature
that *I* want, but others probabaly wont...

I think that MOST site opperators (at least of bigger sites), would
like to *fix* the problem - I think telling them is great. I don't
think that telling them in log files is the way to do it.

my $0.02

On 5/2/05, Matthew Gertner <matthew at allpeers.com> wrote:
> Julien,
> 
> Here, here! You make a very important point very effectively.
> 
> Someone mentioned the impressive array of high-power intellects on this
> list. I have the greatest respect for the technical elegance of
> Greasemonkey, of which I am a committed user, and thus for its
> creators/maintainers. Likewise, I am a great admirer of
> programmer/writer/thinkers like Mark Pilgrim, whose work I have followed
> with great interest for a long time (long before Greasemonkey, in any case).
> 
> That said, I agree that the "back off or we fork the dog" mentality has a
> pernicious stifling effect. I wish we wouldn't evoke the nuclear option so
> cavalierly, for exactly the reason you give: Greasemonkey gives us a
> fantastic opportunity to learn by doing, not just in the technical realm,
> but also with respect to feedback loops between user and website operators.
> It would be great to see all of these smart folks innovating in this area
> rather than rejecting any experimentation out of hand.
> 
> The Wired article pointed to by Mark is very interesting. But I don't agree
> that a couple of anecdotes of this type constitute proof that all website
> operators are arrogant fools intent on coercing the general web population.
> To my mind, providing information about client-side scripts to a website is
> very different from reproducing the site elsewhere, effectively setting
> yourself up as competition to that site (not to condone the actions of the
> site in question, which I certainly *don't* agree with).
> 
> If some information about script usage is conveyed by GM (with an opt out
> for sites that try to abuse this), it isn't unimaginable that some
> progressive sites will improve their features in reaction to this
> information. This could become a big and compelling news story, at least in
> the tech world, and thus cause more mainstream sites to sit up and take
> notice.
> 
> Matt
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: greasemonkey-bounces at mozdev.org [mailto:greasemonkey-
> > bounces at mozdev.org] On Behalf Of Julien Couvreur
> > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:30 PM
> > To: greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > Subject: Re: [Greasemonkey] Question: what would happen if
> > Greasemonkeysentthe ID of every applicable user script with each request?
> >
> > On 4/30/05, Ben Hyde <bhyde at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Revealing grease monkey configuration to the site is contrary to monkey
> > > nature.  These scripts stand outside the contracted part of the
> > > exchange.  There are no interoperability problems for grease monkey
> > > scripts, by definition.
> >
> >
> > What about considering the greasemonkey "nature" as being a way to
> > evolve the web?
> > Consider it an experimental ground for the long tail of features.
> >
> > >From one of my previous post on this thread: "I think the most
> > interesting thing that publishers can do with the information is: look
> > up the scripts that are being used on their sites and learn from them,
> > possibly making them easier or integrating these features in their
> > website. They would also learn how popular each script is."
> >
> > Advertising the GM scripts being run on a page is mostly not about
> > stability. If 50% of a site's users were using a given user script,
> > maybe that shows a problem in the site or cool feature that is worth
> > fixing/implementing.
> > Maybe they would also implement it in a less hacky way than GM scripts
> > do, leading to a bit more semantic markup (which in turn helps future
> > GM scripts). You create a virtuous cycle for those who play along.
> > Those who resist the evolution of the web wouldn't receive the
> > benefits of that information, and won't really leverage the
> > experimentations of the community.
> >
> > Instead of using these headers to stabilize the UI, I'm thinking these
> > GM headers have the potential to create a virtuous feedback loop to
> > change the web faster.
> > What if Apple found out that 40% of their iPod users use some
> > workaround to some of the basic features/limitations? What do you
> > think they'd do for iPod vNext?
> > Maybe websites would find ways to create a more modular infrastructure
> > for supporting features needed by only 10% of their users.
> >
> >
> > Why not at least attempt it? Greasemonkey is about experimentation. If
> > that experiment fails, then let's just remove the feature. The best
> > way to proove this feature is useless it to implement it and "fail
> > fast". We could even set a criteria for what constitutes a failure
> >
> >
> > That's one thing I didn't like about the "fork threats": they put an
> > unusual pressure on a relatively small feature (that doesn't
> > revolutionize the architecture or principles of GM) than can easily be
> > reverted if need be. This kind of reaction is like a self-appointed
> > veto power, which stiffens the brainstorming and the debate. If you're
> > against that feature why not just reply with (-1) vote?!
> > We're only at version 0.3 of Greasemonkey! And Greasemonkey is not
> > Linux (see the politics going on over there about BitKeeper and lots
> > of other stuff). GM is still being defined and experimented with...
> >
> > Anyways, this thread is becoming too serious :-P
> > I suspect the vetoers are not going to change their minds and Aaron is
> > going to give up like he said. Greasemonkey will still be great.
> > Sorry for such long email. I'll try to give my soapbox a rest for a
> > couple days ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Julien
> > _______________________________________________
> > Greasemonkey mailing list
> > Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>