讨论 » Greasy Fork 反馈

Block access to the code

§
发表于:2021-09-28
编辑于:2021-09-28

In the reports, after scripts such as "Unauthorized copy" and "Minified code" are deleted, why doesn't the website prevent the code from being accessed?

The code of the deleted script can still be accessed and be imported into scripts (including hidden scripts). It is difficult for users to know whether the reason why the introduced script is deleted is "Missing, non-informative, or misleading description" or "Unauthorized copy".

§
发表于:2021-09-29

I don't understand why the update check needs to work.

I think the code can be replaced with an empty code that uses the same version number. In this way, the user's script will not be updated to be empty.


Users need to know why the script was deleted. After the script is undeleted, if the author says that the reporter is malicious, users will think that the script was deleted due to a false report and insult the reporter. For reports other than "Malware", users need to decide whether to stop using the script based on the report.

§
发表于:2021-09-30

Only moderators are able to see who created the report, unless there's a bug somewhere.

Authors and users don't know who the reporter is, so they use the word “reporter”.

I don't think that many users will bother checking.

  • Hypothetical situation: "This script was deleted, it doesn't matter, I don't care why it was deleted. I can use other scripts."
  • Actual situation: "Why report this script? There is no script to replace it. I hate reporters. I want to know why it was deleted. Will the report be false? Is this script safe? Should I stop using this script?"

In addition to "malware", what users care most about is "Undisclosed antifeature". For the "Undisclosed antifeature" scripts, users need to decide whether to stop using the script based on the report. For the "function description does not match the code" scripts, users will stop using it. I think viewing reports is good for users.

发表回复

登录以发表回复。