Subscribe: Comments on: AMO and the quality bar
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2006/10/31/amo-and-the-quality-bar/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
amo  conduit  doesn  extension  extensions  firefox  mozilla org  mozilla  org  privacy  process  quality  ratings  review process  review 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: AMO and the quality bar

Comments on: AMO and the quality bar



noise from signal



Last Build Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:05:56 +0000

 



By: fligtar.com » Reviewing the Review Process

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:19:07 +0000

[...] Last week at the Firefox 2 Summit, we came up with a solution to many of these problems that will raise the quality bar and also increase the transparency of the add-on review process. This new system will divide addons.mozilla.org into two sections: a public area (similar to the current AMO) and a sandbox area. The graphic below is a basic summary of how it will work. [...]




By: jan

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:50:37 +0000

to John Prophet and the others.

I'm a happy user of torrent-search (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2607/)and so are many of my friends. I know Torrent-search was build on Conduit platform but I see nothing wrong with it. Can you please explain me what risk am I taking by using it? I will not use a spyware software... but as much as I checked (and I did!) it's totally safe. Please elaborate.

Thanks, Jan




By: Steve

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:12:19 +0000

Shaver AMO is going downhill as every conduit toolbar is allowed to swamp the site and search results as you are giving them (the submitters) free advertising. There have also been several concerns of comments on AMO being deleted every time a remotely negative comment was posted. If you must allow these conduit toolbars on AMO can you not at the very least put them in a separate section?. An example thread is http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=465643

And the link you deleted that I posted earlier here http://byron-adams.com/archives/6-Scammers-turn-Mozilla-traffic-into-revenue.html




By: Steven

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:50:09 +0000

http://byron-adams.com/archives/6-Scammers-turn-Mozilla-traffic-into-revenue.html




By: J-Mac

Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:13:14 +0000

I don't appreciate AMO being automatically whitelisted as long as they continue to host the Conduit/Effective Brand garbage. Some have posted that extension ratings will level the playing field as far as extension quality goes, but these garbage bars are loaded with five star ratings by the dozens or hundreds within a day or two of their initial posting at AMO - isn't any of this screened for shilling?

And some have maligned the old Extensions Mirror! AMO sponsors should be ashamed! Privacy obviously is no longer a concern at AMO or Mozilla.org. If you're not careful, you'll start catching up with IE...




By: John Prophet

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:57:14 +0000

How can you allow a company Conduit (http://www.conduit.com/) to spam your site like they, promoting spyware and adware.

http://www.conduit.com/privacy/ConduitPrivacy.aspx

There are dozens of lookalike toolbars that do nothing useful but spying and exibit ads.

I seen several serious developers frustated by your review process and then you allow these scumbags spread there garbage.

Why???

Thank you.




By: VanillaMozilla

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:48:41 +0000

The Firefox front page at Mozilla used to say "Browse the Web with confidence - Firefox protects you from viruses, spyware and pop-ups. Enjoy improvements to performance, ease of use and privacy." I notice that it doesn't say anything about privacy any more.

Like it or not, the quality of the browser is limited by the quality of the extensions. Right now extensions are being used for commercial abuse of privacy, and AMO is hosting them. It ought to be harder, not easier, to get an extension listed.




By: Myk Melez

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:08:13 +0000

One possible defense against the gaming of user ratings is to allow users to identify others they trust (à la social networking sites) and then weight user ratings according to the length and strength of the trust chains which link them to a set of seed users whom we consider eminently trustworthy.

I have added this suggestion to the Remora Idea Dump.




By: Kevin H

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:01:27 +0000

Mike, I'm sorry if this is a bit tangential, but you mentioned the "recommended list", and I have a comment to make about that.

I've seen several articles that tout IE7's new "tab preview" mode. Now FF2 doesn't have that feature built-in, but I know there are several extensions which provide it including several that won awards in the Extend Firefox competition. How is it that none of these award winning extensions are "recommended"? Wouldn't it make sense to highlight at least one of them in the recommended list, just to help new FF2 users quickly realize that this is not an exclusive feature to Internet Explorer?




By: Mossop

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:31:59 +0000

I think I agree with what you're saying. The AMO review process shouldn't be based on what the extension actually does, or even to a certain extent how it does it. If the extension is useless or complicated for the user then it will just get bad ratings, it shouldn't be denied review in the first place (and I hope that isn't happening already). What the review should be doing is ensuring the extension is safe, i.e. it doesn't kill the browser, and doesn't transmit personal information without the users knowledge.

I don't know how the review process works currently, but it seems that you need an objective criteria, and defined techniques for measuring it. One obvious one is the error console and I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution. You say that add-ons have been rejected based on a strict JS warning, I say good. Warnings are indications of potential problems and where they are simply omitted var's they are trivial to fix, though maybe the review process needs like a second quicker review when the author is just picking nits like these.