Top 10 Firefox Extensions to Avoid 538
jcatcw writes "First there were the 20 must-have Firefox Extension and ensuing Slashdot discussion. Now Computerworld has the top 10 to avoid. For example, NoScript, which does make Firefox safer, but isn't worth the hassle, Or, VideoDownloader for slow downloads, when it works at all. Then there's Greasemonkey — on both lists."
Hey, I like NoScript (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it takes a moment to re-enable JavaScript for sites which insist on using it for navigation (which is itself annoying, but sometimes a site has content I want.) But it's less than the aggravation of having the text I'm trying to read covered with a pop-up layer.
I don't mind polite advertising, but anything that moves (Java, Flash, and most recently Javascript) is going to be worthless unless I absolutely require it.
Adblock and Adblock Plus?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, sites like Slashdot, Google, etc. have it right. Minimally intrusive ads with quality content == a good experience for most users.
A little Bias (Score:5, Interesting)
I also love how they put in 'Adblock' and 'Adblock Plus'. They say, well we don't like it being an advertising web site, but trust us, it is not very good.
I thought 'Adblock' was a great extension and very effective.
I also like 'Noscript', it is simple to prevent sites that insist that they and every site they connect to should be allowed to run javascript on your browser. 'Noscript' allows me to specify only the sites, like the one I am browsing, to actually run Javascript instead of every ad aggregator that wants information on you.
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:2, Interesting)
But not getting bothered by popups unless I really need them (which is rarely) is one of the best things about the whole addon. I've been (ab)using the 'Intaweb' for a long long time (Yes, I did use gopher...), and the amount of irrelevant crap nowadays is staggering. A page being 270K in size with only about 150 words of usable information is to me an absolute waste. If you'd be using a 14K4 modem now (yesyes.. I know...) you wouldn't even be able to browse anything anymore.
And then people wonder that 'my internet is so slow'...
And I've been known to just wget a page and run it through strings to read articles
Worst... List... Evar! (Score:4, Interesting)
And yeah, some of it is my significant anti-consumerism bias, too. I block ads on principle, as I consider them an ever-increasing intrusion into my life. Yes, people have the right to create and use advertising, but I have the same right to use any legal means to keep them away from me. And for those who ask, as this article did, "what would happen to all the great ad-supported sites if everyone used these tools," well, they'd be replaced by something else - subscription-driven services, smaller clusters of free services, etc. I love the web as much as the next guy, but it's not like I'd be lost if the entire web went dark tomorrow. I have other interests. But that's not going to happen anyway.
Ad block and ad block plus... (Score:4, Interesting)
If ads had continued to be a small banner at the top or bottom of the page with NO ANIMATION, or even small ads down the sides that didn't interrupt the flow of the CONTENT (again, no animation), then guess what? I would never have seen a need to use ad blocking software.
The fact is that advertising has gotten very intrusive and counter productive. Hell, I'd likely visit a few advertiser's sites, but now I never see them because of the way they were changed to be as intrusive as possible, hence sent to the bit bucket. WHy do advertisers believe that being as in-your-face as possible would do anything BUT piss people off about the stuff they are trying to sell?
That decent ads (see above
So cry me a river. I'll stick with adblocking software. It's your own damned fault that people block your precious advertisers these days.
Re:Adblock.. (Score:3, Interesting)
But the future of Internet advertising is with astroturfing, viral ad campaigns, etc. That can't be blocked with any technical solution.
Re:Any "Performance" tweaks as well (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not pointless. If the browser is limited to two connections, then it is going to block loading images, JavaScript, etc until after the HTML and CSS has entirely finished downloading. Limiting the number of connections increases the latency for loading websites significantly. Graph a typical page load sometime if you don't believe me, you can easily halve your page load times by using things like alternative hostnames and CSS image tricks.
Having said that, it's not a good idea to go against the RFC, and that users should switch pipelining on.
Re:As pointless as the last article (Score:5, Interesting)
I run a bunch, and nobody complains because I don't do client side scripts or run other people's ads.
because it actually enhances the browsing experience.
I go to websites for information, not a "browsing experience". What enhances my browsing experience is delivering the information I'm looking for without a lot of singing and dancing. If I'm looking for entertainment, again it'll be the specific content (eg video clip) I'm looking for, not all singing all dancing all popup crap.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I do pay for some premium content, such as the Wall Street Journal, and a couple other work related (and work paid for) news sites. Unfortunately, we don't have a viable micro-payment system yet, so when you hit a site that you would pay 5 - 10 cents to read an article, you can't.
Re:Adblock and Adblock Plus?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the problem is that websites have zero clue what they're doing when they're laying out the page. They put the ads in the largest, most obtrusive places in an attempt to gain eye-time, but all it does is piss off the user.
Look at a print magazine. Most of them have remarkably good layout - ads are clearly ads, and text flows around the ads naturally. The site in TFA has horrifying ads that break the flow of the article and send your mind into unnatural gymnastics trying to follow along.
Ads and web content can coexist peacefully, but not until webmasters realize that layout is not just a 5-minute job in Dreamweaver, but is rather a full-time job that requires real qualifications and real training.
Re:Sorry but the list is BS (Score:5, Interesting)
But there was a time when the vast majority of content was essentially ad free. Much of it even useful information. Heck, even today I visit plenty of sites that have no ads nor do charge for content. Although maybe that has changed in the last couple years. Adblock Plus is just so effective, I'm often shocked if for some reason I have to browse without it. Like I am actually overwhelmed. You just don't realize how in prevelent advertising is until you've shielded youself from it for a while. Mass ad blocking is like a drug. A sweet, sweet drug that I never want to come off.
-matthew
Re:#3 = Adblock? No bias there (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do you think telemarketers hate do-not-call lists? They should be celebrating to high heavens, since all their non-customers got sorted out of the pool. *BUZZ* wrong answer. There's plenty people that don't want to be bother with them but who respond to ads - not directly but then you don't see a TV ad and immidiately call and order unless it's TV shop. Hell, there's plenty people like you that'll deny they get affected by ads that still do. There could be ten brands of tooth paste with exactly the same goop and you'd pick the one with the best commercials, or the best packaging, or the best store placement. Or the one you got last time, which amounts to the same.
Face it, for every thing where you're choosing on facts (for example for most of slashdot, computer equipment) there's a hundred things you're not, and you have neither the time or inclination to investigate. All people are like that, except maybe for them it's fashion clothes or ecological food or vacation resorts or whatever. Then we can sit and laugh at the people that buy memory-starved Dells while they laugh at us for going to that overpriced beach resort when there's a better and cheaper one just nearby. And if you really seriously mean that you're in the small minority that doesn't get affected by any ad, ever, well you are still indistinguishable from the rest. Don't expect them to give up trying anytime soon.
Noscript..... (Score:4, Interesting)
FTFA:
Does NoScript make Firefox safer? Sure. Is it worth the hassle? No. For some reason, paranoia seems to be cool among Web geeks
I guess they think that having your system pwned and turned into a spam-spewing zombie DoS machine of death is what really makes one cool.
Re:Hey, I like NoScript (Score:3, Interesting)
To pre-empt queries as to why I have a long whitelist: work computer, and I imported a whitelist as I was told.
Re:Missing from the list (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the way they make you click from page to page to load their ads (if you weren't running NoScript or AdBlock...) gives me an idea for another extension which stitches these kinds of articles together.
Re:The web with NoScript is so much better! (Score:1, Interesting)
Generating a form with a bunch of hidden values (TYPE=HIDDEN) and not having a submit button for the user to click. Just an onload javascript to submit it. Using something like Firebug and adding a submit button works, so I'm not seeing that they are using javascript for anything besides a submit.
Even worse, the page before it was "Script disabled, click Submit button" which when pressed took you to the before mentioned hidden values javascript submitting page.
Actually both colleges I am attending/will be/was websites to login to do anything with student services (check grades, check balances, see schedule) you have to have javascript on. (Although the more I look, the more it seems that the javascript is just for submitting the forms, not user input validation)
Do they use it anywhere else? Well one of the schools sites for seeing your schedule page, you fill in values and click a submit (which runs some javascript(click counting only, no error checking, only exists to pop open a new window with the stuff requested)), and submits it.
The click counting is kinda strange as well, it will only submit if you have only clicked it 1-4 times. Between times 5-9 it does nothing(No message back to the user, anything), and on click 10 it says "stop clicking" and resets the click counter back to 0. (So you can repeat the process...)
The javascript exists only to keep the user from clicking too many times. (This as well as other stuff is down from 9PM-7AM M-F (Subday Night-Thursday night, it is up all weekend), and will just give the user a timeout error if it can't connect. Why they don't have it bounce back with a "Sorry, the stuff is off for the night" is beyond me).
Then you have the sites which use javascript to fill in what CSS page the browser should get....(Same place as schedule page above)
OK, time to stop ranting...
(Yes, I use Noscript. Flash sometimes will kill/bring my machine to a standstill for some reason, and I didn't want to add *.swf* into the adblock filter because I sometimes do want the flash (although on a case by case basis). Perhaps about a dozen sites are in the noscript white list, the rest I allow on the temp basis. One of the sites in both my adblock white list and noscript list, because I want to support them and occasionally the ads they have are relevant to my interests.(Even if it is a little flash))
For the other anonymous, these aren't dynamic user interfaces, it is a simple form that doesn't need the javascript to work. The javascript doesn't even do input verification. (If it did, I might be able to see why it would be useful, but I think anything should still be checked by the server, because I don't trust what people are sending me, and knowing that javascript:document.getElementById('hiddenFld').v
Re:Missing from the list (Score:2, Interesting)