Greasy Fork

Suggestion: Script name and Script Page Title

Script name over time can change but the title for the script homepage can be constant. Is it possible to add a feature to have the web page name for a script separate from the actual script name within the user.js file.

Example of scripts that contain different names from their user.js file:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131106062803/https://userscripts.org/users/100610/scripts

(Title is sometimes more descriptive.)

Thanks

I meant the title and not the URL.

I have one script at the moment on GFork and it is called "[TS] Youtube Filter" inside the "user.js" file but I wish to only name it "Youtube Filter" within the homepage (Description Page).

Anyhow just a small preference. I guess it isn't important.

userscripts.org allowed the description on the About page, including the title, to be different than was was in the script. Some people considered this a bug because users could be deceived (e.g., Marti's uso Count Issues script colored the title red in that case as a warning to the user). I used the feature to add descriptive parentheticals for better search indexing, which I don't think makes me a bad person...

I just have a prefix on all my scripts with [TS] so they are always at the top in GM listing. It just does not look so good in the name listing.

But like Jefferson, I also had descriptive names in some of my scripts to give them more hits. Most people look at the name before even attempting to read the description.

So you mean to say you'd give your script a wacky name, and then describe what it does in brackets in the title?
Why not just do that to the userscript meta as well then?

A catchy name if possible in the js file and a more descriptive name on the homepage.

It just common sense to have more descriptive name as most people I would assume are like me and just look at the title. If it catches interest then you look at the description.

"Schmoogle" does not get as many hits as "Schmoogle 4 Google" or the other titles I choose for it over time. In due course the name Schmoogle would have been very recognisable.

"Generic Image Viewer" becomes "Generic Image Viewer (Pixiv, deviantArt)"

Just adding more description in brackets produces a lot more hits.

There are tons of scripts by just looking at the name you might not guess the associated site or what they do.

So instead of putting just "Schmoogle" in the script and "Schmoogle 4 Google" on the page, why not put "Schmoogle 4 Google" in both?
Solves this problem and is more consistent anyhow...

I am very picky :)

i could understand if you were making money off it or from ad revenue but this just seems a bit overkill for something free, and like was said before, that kind of option allowed for deceptive names on scripts although @JasonBarnabe 's staff is pretty quick on the take down if something fishy is found ^.^

If someone wants to be "fishy" wouldn't they rename the actual script name ontop of the web page title? I mean it's not like someone is going to name their web page title "Fantastic Script" and the the actual script title "Facebook Hack".

You can check me scripts on userscripts-mirror for my non-fishy, total GMO free scripts.

I wouldn't consider it an overkill, considering it's a simple request. The site has lots of complex features, like description history and description history.

But you are right it is free and was only a suggestion.