19
edits
Update:Remora Idea Dump: Difference between revisions
→User accounts: -- added new topic 'Automatic Log in Option'
Sam Hasler (talk | contribs) |
(→User accounts: -- added new topic 'Automatic Log in Option') |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
EE: This kind of trust network has been investigated by Advogato.com; it seems to work fairly well. There's a deeper description of algorithms for it there. | EE: This kind of trust network has been investigated by Advogato.com; it seems to work fairly well. There's a deeper description of algorithms for it there. | ||
For each of these metrics you could also ask the question, how does this version's metrics compare to the previous version's metrics? (or the average metrics over the lifetime of the extension) to find out if the latest version is better or worse than the previous one. | For each of these metrics you could also ask the question, how does this version of the extension's metrics compare to the previous version's metrics? (or the average metrics over the lifetime of the extension) to find out if the latest version is better or worse than the previous one. | ||
This could be displayed on the extensions page in some way so that people can have some idea of how desirable it is to update to the latest version as well as being used to create a "most improved" or "top movers" list. | This could be displayed on the extensions page in some way so that people can have some idea of how desirable it is to update to the latest version as well as being used to create a "most improved" or "top movers" list. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
I'd also like to see a way for updates to be pushed out automatically by the developer, perhaps via a per-developer or per-add-on flag to permit that streamlining. | I'd also like to see a way for updates to be pushed out automatically by the developer, perhaps via a per-developer or per-add-on flag to permit that streamlining. | ||
== Screenshots == | |||
Starting with Remora, every extension page should be 'required' to include at least 1 screenshot of their extension in use. If an extension author can take the time to create an extension, test it, and upload it to AMO then why is it that so many don't bother taking the time to take a screencap (and include it in their extension description submission)? Words are good but pictures give a much more immediate idea (or help visualize exactly) what the extension achieves. I propose that at least 1 screenshot be made a mandatory requirement of submission/approval. No screenshot, no approval. [[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 09:53, 19 December 2006 (PST) | |||
== Self-Promoting SPAM/BUMP updates == | == Self-Promoting SPAM/BUMP updates == | ||
One major annoyance on AMO is seeing the same extensions constantly (daily/almost daily)in the 'Most Recently Updated' list -- when everyone and their dog knows that the extension has NOT been updated.. the author is intentionally 'bumping' their extension to the top of the list. The 2 biggest culprits must surely be the | One major annoyance on AMO is seeing the same extensions constantly (daily/almost daily)in the 'Most Recently Updated' list -- when everyone and their dog knows that the extension has NOT been updated.. the author is intentionally 'bumping' their extension to the top of the list. The 2 biggest culprits must surely be the | ||
[https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2953/ Mojabosna Toolbar] and the [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1520/ Reel New Media Toolbar]. What can be done to prevent authors from claiming to have updated their extension just so they can always stay near the top of the list? Not saying that this is what these guys do, but an author could add or remove a blank line from their code every single day and claim it was 'updated'. It looks bad on AMO. RNMtoolbar currently has a rating of 0.31 -- AMO needs a special section for extensions (and authors) such as these --- "The Shitter. Enter at your own risk". [[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] | [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2953/ Mojabosna Toolbar] and the [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1520/ Reel New Media Toolbar]. What can be done to prevent authors from claiming to have updated their extension just so they can always stay near the top of the list? Not saying that this is what these guys do, but an author could add or remove a blank line from their code every single day and claim it was 'updated'. It looks bad on AMO. RNMtoolbar currently has a rating of 0.31 -- AMO needs a special section for extensions (and authors) such as these --- "The Shitter. Enter at your own risk". [[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 10:03, 18 September 2006 (PST) | ||
I would prefer to see extensions that abuse this system and others (such as manipulation of the rating by posting many self-serving positive comments and removing negative ones) removed completely from the AMO site, but as a minimum they definitely need to be kept separate from the main extensions. | |||
--[[User:Andy tech|Andy tech]] 19:19, 24 November 2006 (PST) | |||
=EULA/PP localizations= | =EULA/PP localizations= | ||
| Line 74: | Line 80: | ||
Should we limit the number of categories an add-on may belong to? If add-ons are assigned to every category that they are even remotely related to, which is what often happens today, then it makes browsing by category much less useful. <br/> | Should we limit the number of categories an add-on may belong to? If add-ons are assigned to every category that they are even remotely related to, which is what often happens today, then it makes browsing by category much less useful. <br/> | ||
What would be the right limit? [[User:Ancestor|Ancestor]] 10:57, 10 November 2006 (PST) | What would be the right limit? [[User:Ancestor|Ancestor]] 10:57, 10 November 2006 (PST) | ||
I agree that the number of categories that an add-on may be listed in should be limited (to 2). As the system is being abused by the conduit.com user toolbars. | |||
Some categories now have over 200 items, which makes browsing a category tiresome. Maybe more specific categories or subcategories could be added to reduce the number in each category, with the ability to sort extensions alphabetically. | |||
--[[User:Andy tech|Andy tech]] 18:25, 24 November 2006 (PST) | |||
= Site banner/identity = | = Site banner/identity = | ||
Can we just have one banner for the whole site, instead of the silly app-spefic banner? I've seen the app specific one on [http://142.204.140.147:8080/shaver/search-results-html/ the mockups] and it gives me nightmares. Splitting the site by app causes problems when we want to add new apps, and search doesn't work properly, and we want to get the app parameter out of urls because it's silly, but then how do you say "hey check out this great thunderbird theme" and link your friend to it? I think it's a bad idea overall. [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 09:51, 22 August 2006 (PDT) | Can we just have one banner for the whole site, instead of the silly app-spefic banner? I've seen the app specific one on [http://142.204.140.147:8080/shaver/search-results-html/ the mockups] and it gives me nightmares. Splitting the site by app causes problems when we want to add new apps, and search doesn't work properly, and we want to get the app parameter out of urls because it's silly, but then how do you say "hey check out this great thunderbird theme" and link your friend to it? I think it's a bad idea overall. [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 09:51, 22 August 2006 (PDT) | ||
= | = User accounts = | ||
Can we use only one database of accounts for the dev cp, forums, reviews and whatever else please? It's soooo much nicer. [[User:Cameron|Cameron]] 09:51, 22 August 2006 (PDT) | |||
: Mark O'Sullivan (creator of the [http://www.getvanilla.com forums] we'll be using, has said that it is possible to integrate with our existing sessions and users, so you won't have to login specifically to the forums or anything, it will all be the same login. [[User:Fligtar|Fligtar]] 18:48, 22 August 2006 (PDT) | |||
==Automatic Log-in Option== | |||
Why oh why in this day and age is AMO one of the few sites around that have no option to automatically log a user in whenever they are visiting the site? It is an unnecessary inconvenience to have to click 'Log In' every time I visit and wish to install an Experimental add-on, rate an add-on, or leave feedback (the last 2 are grayed-out unless you are logged-in). | |||
It may only take a few seconds to do, but it seems to me that considering the many thousands of weekly downloads most good extensions get, the low number of reviews left suggests that people simply aren't bothering to log-in. So not only would an automatic log-in option be a time-saver, but it would benefit the site, the developers who have put in their hard work, and the users who are looking for good feedback on add-ons as they are browsing. | |||
Ideally, it should be a set-able option available under ''My Account'', but how could it be made discoverable (so that most users can enable it)? | |||
--[[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 00:42, 9 June 2008 (PDT) | |||
= Licensing = | = Licensing = | ||
| Line 129: | Line 123: | ||
:::: One of my gripes would be that its hard to find multiple words. For example, 'Restart Firefox'. Google for ""Restart Firefox" site:addons.mozilla.org", an extension called Restart Firefox is #1. Search on AMO and its #17. This causes problems for authors who didn't choose a single-word name for their add-on. There are multiple issues here: there is no way to search for a phrase, the score for a search result doesn't go up if the terms appear in order, theres no word stemming... adding support for phrases is doable with your sql backend, but incorporating a 'real' search engine would cover all of the issues. [[User:Bazzargh|Bazzargh]] 06:58, 1 November 2006 (PST) | :::: One of my gripes would be that its hard to find multiple words. For example, 'Restart Firefox'. Google for ""Restart Firefox" site:addons.mozilla.org", an extension called Restart Firefox is #1. Search on AMO and its #17. This causes problems for authors who didn't choose a single-word name for their add-on. There are multiple issues here: there is no way to search for a phrase, the score for a search result doesn't go up if the terms appear in order, theres no word stemming... adding support for phrases is doable with your sql backend, but incorporating a 'real' search engine would cover all of the issues. [[User:Bazzargh|Bazzargh]] 06:58, 1 November 2006 (PST) | ||
When browsing search results or categories the descriptions of some extensions are too long, requiring excessive scrolling, could the description be limited to a summary of 25 lines maximum (preferably less). | |||
--[[User:Andy tech|Andy tech]] 21:53, 25 November 2006 (PST) | |||
== Basic flow of search == | == Basic flow of search == | ||
| Line 146: | Line 143: | ||
--wonder if there is a way to factor in a metric that expresses one or more of user rating/active user count/recent download count to play into relevance? --chofmann | --wonder if there is a way to factor in a metric that expresses one or more of user rating/active user count/recent download count to play into relevance? --chofmann | ||
I agree that the current search returns to many results and some poor matches. | |||
From post above : | |||
** Occurrences will be weighted (exact title match, match in title, match in summary, match in description. | |||
This is a good idea and an important feature IMHO. | |||
It would also be good to have an exact phrase match (" ") and include/exclude (+/-) options for the search. | |||
Also in advanced search options, tick boxes for where to search for text, in : title, summary, description. | |||
Searching by compatibility would be good too, there are a number of extensions which have not been updated for firefox 2.0. | |||
Is is possible to have an option box to search for compatible extensions only, either manually selecting or auto-detecting browser version. | |||
--[[User:Andy tech|Andy tech]] 18:26, 24 November 2006 (PST) | |||
I second Andy tech. It is very frustrating to find an extension that looks interesting, only to discover after yet another click or two, that it works only on, for example, Version 2.0 or above. I'm not sure how best the choices should be worded, but the idea is that if somebody is using 1.5.x, they won't see any extensions that don't work on 1.5.x The levels should be at least at major intervals (i.e., 1.0, 1.5, 2.0) although minor levels would be nice, too. | |||
= Sorting of addons = | = Sorting of addons = | ||
| Line 187: | Line 199: | ||
-- [[User: Plasticmillion|Plasticmillion]] 10:50, 1 November 2006 (CET) | -- [[User: Plasticmillion|Plasticmillion]] 10:50, 1 November 2006 (CET) | ||
= Approval / Action log = | |||
[[User:Archaeopteryx/UI_for_AMO-AMC_action_log|UI for the action log]] describes some ideas for [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255305 Bug 255305], I have some code for this. | |||
= Beta/Preview site = | |||
I pray that the new version of the site won't be launched suddenly on the unsuspecting public in the way that the last AMO update was (coinciding with FF2.0's release). There was [http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=478265 a MozillaZine thread] at the time filled with a torrent of criticisms of the 'improvements'. I strongly suggest, and urge - a working Beta or Preview site be made available to the public (perhaps via a link on MozillaZine forums) well in advance of Remora's launch so that a repeat can be avoided. As I indicated in an earlier comment, it's all well and good to see plans and code snippets being made available but it's another to be able to actually visualize it - and use it so that useful feedback can be provided. Though some of us may be negative and critical, we all want the best for the site, and fellow Mozilla-product users. | |||
[[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 09:02, 2 December 2006 (PST) | |||
:: Update: There is now a Preview up at http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/ and a Feedback page at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Remora_Feedback | |||
::[[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 00:33, 6 January 2007 (PST) | |||
= Installing Thunderbird add-ons = | |||
<small>(Note: I'm not all sure, if this fits here, so if not, please excuse and correct me.)</small> | |||
Right now, there is this template (for extensions): [https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/4025/#install-4025 <example>] | |||
How to Install in Thunderbird: | |||
1. Right-Click the link above and choose "Save Link As..." to Download and save the file to your hard disk. | |||
2. In Mozilla Thunderbird, open the extension manager (Tools Menu/Extensions) | |||
3. Click the Install button, and locate/select the file you downloaded and click "OK" | |||
This process can be shortened, as one can paste the Link URL in the file-selection-dialog (in Thunderbird extension manager). So temporarily saving it on hard disk by hand is superfluous overhead. | |||
(Of course, even better would be auto-detecting Thunderbird extensions (or better: more generally ''add-ons'') and passing them on to the Thunderbird application for handling/installing there.) | |||
Greetings, -- [[User:Atmozphere|Atmozphere]] 13:19, 17 March 2007 (PDT) | |||
= Graphs = | |||
As a Remora user (i.e. extension developer), I found graphs to be a great tool to monitor my (relatively unpopular) extension's exposure, and I believe that would be very much appreciated by other developers as well. The purpose of course is to help developers maximize their extension's exposure by allowing them to evaluate what gives them best leverage for exposure -- and access to historical data is an essential tool in that regard. | |||
I made a proposal half a year ago in that direction by writing the [[Update:Remora_Stats|Remora Stats]] article, and I received no feedback. I can certainly accept my idea might not be practical to implement for whatever reason, but as an extension developer I cannot accept it's completely idiotic and not deserving any attention whatsoever. | |||
Please take a minute to review it, check out [http://bogdan.stancescu.ro/personal_projects/converter/amo_graph.php my own implementation] of that idea for my extension, and give me the minimal courtesy of dropping a line in the [http://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Update_Talk:Remora_Stats&action=edit§ion=new discussion page], time permitting. | |||
Cheers, | |||
--[[User:BogdanS|BogdanS]] 14:29, 18 May 2007 (PDT) | |||