Discussions » Greasy Fork Feedback

Add working/non-working script tags to really old scripts

§
Posted: 2021-02-20
Edited: 2021-02-20
Users on greasyfork that haven't logged in in the past 1/2 years should get an email notifying them that if they don't click on an link on their email, all of their scripts will have an non-working tag, so with 1 single click they can confirm that they won't use their account "ever again" or any time soon. If they click on this link them their scripts should have a tag like "non-working", but if they click on their email then the "working" tag will be added to their scripts, if the "working" tag is already on their script then nothing should be changed...

Maybe instead of doing this by their past log in day, greasyfork could do this for every single public script available to install, by checking the script last updated day, and if the last update was 1/2 years ago then the script author should get that notification email...
*Maybe the "BAD" ratings could also be included on this notification somehow...

This would be great to filter what's working and what's not working on greasyfork. Some scripts are so freaking old that they still have http instead of https in their includes and matches rules...

Would be great if everyone could filter their searches on greasyfork by working scripts
§
Posted: 2021-02-21
The question is how do you find scripts that aren't working in a way that's not annoying to authors, not prone to abuse, and doesn't require a moderator to manually check tens of thousands of scripts? What's been done is this:

If a script receives 3 bad reviews in a row, then the author is notified. If the author doesn't post a new version or respond to the reviews, then it will be deleted.

So if you find non-working script, post a bad review and say exactly what isn't working.
§
Posted: 2021-02-21
Edited: 2021-02-21
@JasonBarnabe

Thanks for your reply!

Kind of, what I actually want is to find scripts that are working, I don't want to see any script that isn't working...
I think that deleting an account/script is annoying to almost any author,since the script could just be unlisted if the script gets 3 or more bad reviews, or if the script is very old... Plus if the script is just unlisted the author can still use the script codes to to anything he wants, like making another script or updating the script to make it public again...

That's good to know, I didn't know that. But I really think that this isn't really helping... Since a lot of people that comes to greasyfork to install scripts doesn't always have/create an account just to review on the script. So the idea I gave about time seems to be better. I can and I will totally start doing what you said, but... 1 single bad review counts for nothing, since 3 bad reviews are needed.

A lot of scripts on greasyfork were made for "very unpopular" websites, so even if these scripts doesn't work it's very likely that this script will always be on greasyfork even when the script doesn't work anymore, since most of the the few users of this non popular website has, won't create an account on greasyfork just to review the script as bad.
§
Posted: 2021-03-05
@JasonBarnabe

How long does a 3 bad reviews script takes to be deleted?
§
Posted: 2021-03-05
How long does a 3 bad reviews script takes to be deleted?
We give the author 2 weeks to respond before the script is deleted.
§
Posted: 2021-03-05
Thanks
q1k
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
Maybe have a tag "unmaintained" which can be added by the developer?
This would indicate that it may or may not work.
Not sure if reviews should be disabled on such scripts?
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
@q1k

That's a bad idea. Authors that leave greasyfork and don't want to keep updating their scripts, surely won't have the desire and won't care about adding an unmantained tag to their unmantained scripts...

I think that reviews should still be allowed even for these scripts and for bad and non-working scripts too, because that helps to know when someone was last interested and tested the script, and what's the most recent user opinion on it.
q1k
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
I meant rated reviews, not general review discussions.
As for the rating itself, it can be hidden altogether.

The "unmaintained" tag is explanatory enough. Meaning, the script might or might not work anymore, or in other words, check the feedback before installing (that's what I usually do when I install something).
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
I don't think it's useful enough to have. The number of authors who don't bother to maintain their scripts but do bother to add the tag would be pretty small.
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
@q1k

I also meant rated reviews... But even the general reviews are helpful sometimes.

But I think that it's much better to have greasyfork auto add the unmaintained tag, than needing to have the authors add that tag themselves.
Would be much easier for any author to remove the unmaintained tag, than taking time and remembering to add that tag to all of their unmaintained scripts.
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
I don't think it's useful enough to have. The number of authors who don't bother to maintain their scripts but do bother to add the tag would be pretty small.
Yep, I totally agree! That's what I've been talking!

So... Could you please add this tag to greasyfork and make it be automatically added to all scripts on greasyfork?
Then authors that are maintaining their scripts can remove that tag, and authors that won't maintain their scripts updated won't do anything....

Making it automated is the key, then this could be executed every 3/6 months or a year to all scripts on greasyfork that had an updated released 3/6 months or a year ago

Maybe instead of just adding the tag, these scripts could also be made private (unlisted)?...
q1k
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
So you are saying all scripts not updated in 6 months should be marked as unmaintained, which would indicate that it's probably not working.
But you forget that there are plenty of old scripts that are working fine, so they are not updated.

So the key here would be,
if a script got X bad reviews while being Y number of months since last updated, it would be marked as unmaintained automatically. This is of course assuming the script is popular enough. But it won't really be accurate for most scripts as the installs and feedback is very low or non existent.

That's why I said the author should be able to mark it as "unmaintained", and in the future it can be decided how and when this tag would be automatically added.
§
Posted: 2021-03-08
Edited: 2021-03-08
@q1k

Actually I didn't forget that, but it's easier to know if the author cares a bit of their script and if it's working or not making all scripts automatically have this tag added, than having to ask and beg for authors to manually (and remember) to add this tag to their scripts.

This new idea you had seems to be much greater! But as I previously said the problem is that greasyfork has a lot of users that install scripts and doesn't have an account. For very popular website scripts this wouldn't be a problem, but for non popular websites, like small forums, the users of these unpopular websites would most likely never create an account on greasyfork just to rate the script as bad...
Yes you are right, you just explained what I said in a shorter way, that's why I'm saying that there should be added to greasyfork a better and broader way to add something kind of an "unmaintained" tag.

Ok, but I still thinking that doing the reverse process would be better. Auto add this tag now to all scripts, then the authors could decide on removing or not this tag.
§
Posted: 2021-04-08
@JasonBarnabe

Is the script only deleted on greasyfork or it's also deleted on the script manager of all users that installed the script?
§
Posted: 2021-04-08
Is the script only deleted on greasyfork or it's also deleted on the script manager of all users that installed the script?
Anyone who installed it already keeps it.
§
Posted: 2021-04-08
thank you

Post reply

Sign in to post a reply.