Greasy Fork

Hey, I'd like a little clarity on this line from the Antifeatures help page:

"The following do not require the use of @antifeature payment:

• ...
• A script that asks for donations, as long as the donation does not unlock additional functionality."

If my script has a feature (disabled by default) where the user can enable ads - for the script author - as a penniless donation. Would that not require an antifeature meta key?

If user-script inserts ads, then it should be @antifeature ads, not @antifeature payment. But I don't really know if antifeature required in that case, you better wait for @JasonBarnabe's answer.

@antifeature ads, but you can include an explanation that they're disabled by default.

Thanks for your responses. About the explanation, is there a way to include the explanation in the antifeatures prompt? Or do you mean in the description?

I feel some users wouldn't read the description and install immediately - then see a prompt saying "contains ads" or "the script author's benefit, rather than yours" and then decide to not install the script after all.

So, if there's a way to add an explanation on the popup prompt itself that'd be great!

@TigerYT, that means that Greasy Fork source code should be modified, for this popup should be a new textarea where you will be able to write translations for multiple languages. I, personally, think that this is little too much and much easier will be to just put a big header with explanation for users, something like this:

<h1>ADs is disabled by default!</h1>
<p>User-script contains ADs, but it is disabled by default and can be enabled only by your choice.</p>

No, I mean you can include an description in the metadata key and Greasy Fork will use it where appropriate.

@antifeature ads Optional advertisements if you want to support me. They're off by default.

After experimentation, I found that you can indeed add an 'explanation', although seemingly undocumented you can do // @antifeature ads {explanation}.

It doesn't allow the use of HTML tags, escape sequences (e.g, \n), or character entities (e.g; &.nbsp;), however, "uncommon" characters/symbols seem to be fine - unsure if this is intentional but personally I think it's a good thing, I think this explanation parameter should accept; line breaks, bold and underline (nothing more, nothing less).

I spent quite some time writing a message that captures the users' attention and delivers what I have to say whilst using a little number of words ensuring that they read all of it and ended up with this:

No, I mean you can include a description in the metadata key and Greasy Fork will use it where appropriate.

@antifeature ads Optional advertisements if you want to support me. They're off by default.

You said that just as I was typing my comment out haha, I'm glad an explanation feature has been added. I'd like to suggest the minor suggestions mentioned above to the formatting of the explanation, as well as making it more obvious that you can add an explanation.

Thanks guys, for you help.

It's the second sentence on the page you initially linked to.

Antifeatures are specified as script meta keys with the format @antifeature type description. type is required and description is optional.

Not supporting HTML is intentional.

Wow, I must be blind (to protect my Twitter from being canceled I'm inclined to say; I'm joking).

As for the lack of HTML support being intentional, I'm aware and it makes sense, however (for clarity's sake) I was suggesting that only these three: \n were to be exceptions. I would understand why you wouldn't want to, personally, I think the pros outweigh the cons but: it's your site.

1. It should be readable in the source.
2. I want control of the formatting on the site so things are consistent.
3. User script managers need to read it.
4. I don't think any other meta key supports HTML