Top 10 Firefox Extensions to Avoid

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."

Missing from the list

GoToGoatse - The extension takes you to that famous page everytime you click a link.

I'm still not sure why anyone would install it though.

Re:Missing from the list

That's funny as hell.

#1 Fasterfox: Don't use it, it hammers webservers! There are a lot of links on the page that you are NEVER going to click on, mostly ads. This prefetches all those ads from the adservers webserver, but you're not looking at them! Not cool!

#2 NoScript: Don't use it, it's annoying. Plus, it screws up important scripts. For example, the article has these scripts:

function popup( ...
function popup_noscroll( ...
function switchPage( ... // this ord is used for Double Click Integration
ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000;

Do you really want to have to deal with the trouble?

#3 AdBlock: Do you think we do this to provide you with lame lists? We don't. We do this to make you watch ads. And you have to watch them! Didn't you get that under #2? You're breaking the social contract, you bastard!

What a joke.

Re:Missing from the list

gives me an idea for another extension which stitches these kinds of articles together

Firefox repagination: http://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2099 [mozilla.org]

Of course, once you do that, it becomes even more obvious that the content to garbage ratio on that site is well below 50%, but at least you don't have to click and wait at each break.

Re:Missing from the list

You're breaking the social contract, you bastard!

So, would it be wrong to show people the whole list, allowing many people to ignore their ad-laden web page altogether?

Fasterfox [mozilla.org]
NoScript [mozilla.org]
Adblock Plus [mozilla.org]
PDF Download [mozilla.org]
VideoDownloader [mozilla.org]
Greasemonkey [mozilla.org]
ScribeFire [mozilla.org]
TrackMeNot [mozilla.org]
Tabbrowser Preferences [mozilla.org]
Tabbrowser Extensions [sakura.ne.jp]
FormSpy [nai.com]

Hmmm. It doesn't feel wrong.

Re:Missing from the list

From TFA:

For some reason, paranoia seems to be cool among Web geeks, but for the most part, it is totally unwarranted unless you're sending and receiving sensitive data.

I'm not using Noscript because I'm paranoid. I ran into many sites that used Javascript to float ads over the entire page. Noscript puts me in control of the content I wish to view.

Re:Missing from the list

What's a goatse?

Re:Missing from the list

Probably about the same thing you and I do, but possibly in black and white.

Re:Missing from the list

This has to be the first time in history a link to goatse could reasonably be modded +5 Informative. It won't, of course - it'll be modded -5, Troll.

But since you ask:

http://www.goatse.cz/ [goatse.cz]

Re:Missing from the list

I went ahead and tested it with my fingers poised and ready on ctrl-w, just in case...

Damn good thing, too. It's back. Beware.

[shudder] I prefer THIS informative link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse [wikipedia.org]

At least, I think so. There's no way I'm actually clicking on your link.

Re:[shudder] I prefer THIS informative link

I right clicked, copied the location, pasted to my friend Derek.

I'm pretty sure, judging by his reaction, that you were right not to click GP's link.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to assume a new identity...

Re:Missing from the list

It's a /.er's way of saying "Welcome."

Sorry but the list is BS

For example, NoScript, which does make Firefox safer, but isn't worth the hassle Says who?

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

No kidding. This article should be renamed:

What users need to do to maximize our cashflow.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

It derides fasterfox for wasting bandwidth (a genuine concern), videodownloader on spurious speed/usage claims, and adblock specifically by saying "where would the web be if everyone blocked ads."

This news source is not objective and is, therefore, made of Fail.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

Yeah. I was gonna say, Adblock at number 3 the avoid? Not if you're an end-user.

Though, I gotta say, videodownloader is overrated, especially if you're only after YouTube videos. The below link will work more quickly:

javascript:(function(){var x = document.createElement('iframe'); x.style.width='1px'; x.style.height='1px'; document.body.appendChild(x); x.src='http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=' + window.location.toString().match(/v=([^\&]*)/)[1]+ '&t='+ document.body.innerHTML.match(/\&t=([^\&]*)/)[1]; })();

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

"where would the web be if everyone blocked ads."

The fact of the matter is that's not the user's problem now is it?

Don't whine to me if your business model doesn't work because it annoys people. That's the free market, baby. Adapt or die.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

The more I think about it, the more this article is really awful. It should be titled, "10 Firefox Extensions I Want to Avoid Despite not Having Good Reasons to Do So", or "10 Firefox Extensions that Cripple Our Site And We Are Too Lazy To Do Anything About It", or, given the tone of it "If You Know More About the Web Than I Do, You're A Hopeless Geek, Get A Life".

For most of the extensions he gives several reasons _to use it_ and then some really lame excuse like "but I don't like it" or "that's too much hassle for me", or "you're just paranoid", the latter being a particularly egregious example of stupidity given the millions of machines that are botnetted. Those so-called "too paranoid" people will be the only ones left surfing when the next big virus/worm/trojan takes down half the 'net.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

If the web content disappears because I don't see the ads, then I'll happily live without the content. If my favorite TV shows go off the air because I skip most of the ads when I watch, I'll watch something else instead. If every TV show goes off the air, I'll read more books.

What I won't do is expose myself to more advertising than I have to.

"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people." - George Bernard Shaw

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

However, you must concede that entrepreneurial instinct (which often involves "pushing" information or products at people when they don't really need or want them) has done a lot to forward technological advances.

Absolutely. Where would we be without web page ads or spam? The world needs more Scott Richters!!1

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

However, you must concede that entrepreneurial instinct (which often involves "pushing" information or products at people when they don't really need or want them) has done a lot to forward technological advances.

While ads have helped the web become what it is today, I can't help but think that maybe if there weren't so many sites out there trying to get hits for ad purposes, the web might be a better place. Even if that means I have to pay for subscriptions to sites with content that I want, I think I might like that web better. We'd still have a lot of low-cost hosting solutions out there, and we'd still have people posting whatever they want. There just probably wouldn't be so much auto-generated garbage out there to sift through in order to see the interesting stuff. Then again, I've thought about this for all of about 3 minutes now, so I could be completely wrong.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

I disagree, and would argue that the web started with DARPA.

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:Sorry but the list is BS

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.

You just said something else, although you didn't realize it:

That mass advertising itself is also like a drug. I'm constantly amazed when I hear people talk about their experiences when they don't watch TV or go on the internet for awhile.. it's like they see the world completely differently, and in fact, they do: without the constant drum of advertising against their skulls, they start to see a world NOT based entirely on crass consumerism, a world where there IS meaning and simply joy in things like going to a picnic or talking to your family or reading a book on a gentle afternoon.

We've become so conditioned to be the perfect consumers that we're actually surprised when we step out of that mold. I never watch or listen to ads anymore, and advertisers be damned: I'll buy your product when and if I need it, and only then will I go looking for it. You do not need to spend every waking moment of my life telling me I am a worthless piece of shit because I don't have the latest gadget or waving things in my face that you KNOW I'm going to have to use credit to buy.

Fuck you, all of you. I am a human being, not a machine you can control.

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

What would be a pertinent ad for an article with Firefox? ... ...
RAM!

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

I think he's saying that most sites simply wouldn't get any revenue because at least he (and probably myself) would neither pay for the content (in most cases) nor suffer ads. I think he's just being honest. Fact is that a lot of sites just wouldn't exist without ad support. But then, so what? That isn't his (or my) problem beyond there being a smaller number of sites available to browse. There was an internet before advertising was ubiquitous, ya know. Even today, plenty of sites manage to get by without advertising OR charging for content.

Finally, what's the "winning" scenario here - consumers (if they can be called that) - getting everything for free?

Winning is businesses finding better ways to make money than by annoying the general user. And yes, I find any and all ads annoying. I don't care if they are relevent or targetted or whatever. If I want to see/here about a company, I will seek them out. If there is any "legitimate"
form of advertising, it is in the form of yellowpages-like directories or catalogs. Beyond that, I don't want to see it or here it. And quite frankly, I don't give a crap how it affects business.

-matthew

Re:Sorry but the list is BS

What pushed me to adblock isn't ads, it's ANNOYING ads. It's ads that make noise, that flash, that move around the screen, that pop up, etc. Regular simple ads were not annoying to me. Now all content providers suffer because of the behavior of some advertisers.

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:Sorry but the list is BS

I think that's why Google has been so successful with their ad system.

The targeting is one thing, but far more important is that Google's ads tend to be far less intrusive (and thus far less likely to get added to a user's blocklist).

The web with NoScript is so much better!

Sure, I miss some content, but normally NoScript is saving me so much time getting there and missing junk adds, flash garbage etc.etc. that the benefit outweighs the losses hundreds of times over.

constantly having to whitelist sites so that scripts can execute in order

I admit I don't use myspace / facebook and things that go boing (though I guess that even if I did, whitelisting two sites one time wouldn't really stress me out) but I have to say that you are sadly deluded if you think that I keep whitelisting your site to see the stupid scripts on it. Most of the time, if it doesn't work straight up, then it's a good sign that the content wasn't worth it. You learn this quickly since on the first day you use noscrpt you do try whitelisting, but soon you realise you aren't really seeing anything worthwhile.

Simple message: if you are designing a site; make sure it works fine without the scripts. Otherwise you will lose viewers who just don't care enough.

Re:The web with NoScript is so much better!

Worse, there are some sites that are just HORRIBLY designed, and use javascript for no real reason at all, and in many / most cases CSS would work BETTER.

Then there is all the statistics / tracking javascript which noscript does a wonderful job getting rid of.

Hey, I like NoScript

I use NoScript not for security but because it cuts out one more way that web sites can annoy me, with their javascripted pop-up ads.

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.

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

Exactly, you only have to whitelist a site once. And it takes all of 2 seconds. Annoying scripts however, will fuck with you every time you visit a site. It's not long until the benefits manifest. And since we tend to spend most of our time on sites we've been before, it's really pretty rare that I have to whitelist anything.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with client side scripting at all. It's inconvenient, dangerous, and downright impolite. If you want me to see your page, do your processing on YOUR computer. Until then, noscript will have to do.

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

One more "me, too". I hate dancing baloney on a web page, and doubly so when it's for useless, distracting, intrusive advertising. Not to mention all the stupid security problems that come up [ckers.org] when you just blindly trust any code to run in your web browser.

For a handful of sites, JavaScript is worth turning on; for everything else, there's NoScript.

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

I hate dancing baloney on a web page, and doubly so when it's for useless, distracting, intrusive advertising.

Is there any other kind of dancing baloney?

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

I hate dancing baloney on a web page, and doubly so when it's for useless, distracting, intrusive advertising.

Is there any other kind of dancing baloney?

Umm, dancing baloney not on a web page?

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

Wow. My comment is neither interesting nor informative, AFAICT. Funny, maybe, since the PP was referring to the "useless, distracting, intrusive advertising" aspects of the dancing baloney... but I guess this goes to show that one man's funny is another man's informative/interesting.

Re:Hey, I like NoScript

FTA:

For some reason, paranoia seems to be cool among Web geeks [...]

Can you be paying attention to security and not be paranoid at the same time?

Sure

Wow, that was the most biased article that I have read in a long time. The summary, for those that didn't RTFA, they pretty much say avoid all the things that make a web master's life difficult; it was from a website perspective and not from the user. Anyhow, it is not worth the read and definitely is not news.

Article translation

Number one extension to use: IE7 God, what a lot of drivel.

Re:Article translation

Number one extension to use: IE7 God, what a lot of drivel.

Where can I find this "IE7 God" extension?

Re:Article translation

Easy. Type "about:iddqd" in your addressbar.

here's the tell...

They're just pissed that NoScript and AdBlock knock down their revenue stream.

"...while continuing to support the sites we love by allowing most ads to appear."

Bzzt - sorry. I chose to not see ads.

As pointless as the last article

Adblock is bad because it makes their site readable?

NoScript bad because it stops nasty/naughty javascript?

PDF download bad because it stops embedded PDFs breaking your system (but also stops hacked tracking links from working)?

TrackMeNot because it stops you being tracked and wastes bandwidth?

I'd suggest the only waste of bandwidth their is their site!