There are lots of issues, we will be working on the as fast as possible.

Please talk about ideas, issues you find, ...

Our overall goal is to get the new userscripts.org stable, then work on adding new functionality. So feature requests might end up as trac tickets for a while.

It's just past midnight in sunny California, and site revamp heroes are sleeping after their relaunch marathon, but operators are standing by for your call. ;-)

Congrats on deploying the new site! I'll be sure to post loads of tickets, and might try to resolve some stuff myself if I find the time.

Oh, and assuming this is up for discussion, I feel somewhat strongly about not using Title Case on Userscripts.org (or elsewhere). I think it looks awkward. It should at the least not be used for non-titles.

One example of a title-cased title is "Search Forum" over in the right-hand column. One example of a title-cased non-title is "Presentational HTML Allowed" next to the textarea where I'm writing this.

Opinions on that?

Thanks for everyone who was involved. It was a late night and a pretty much rewrite of the entire codebase, so we're pretty excited about it! As Jesse mentioned, file tickets and post requests for new features here!

To clarify Britt's post, we didn't rewrite it all last night... It has been in the works for a while.

I see no way to add tags to my script. Am I missing something, are tags going away, or should there be an option to add them?

I say, I really love what you people did in here!
Needs some improvements + features to re-install in here, but all and all it will be real nice with the new design. :]

Tagging is staying in. We basically wanted to get a release out so people could begin updating and uploading their scripts, and then we're addressing moving over a few bits of lacking core functionality, as well as structuring the site as we go.

In short: We will be doing lots of incremental updates to the site in the near and distant future.

Very Very Nice!
you guys rule!

I for one liked the old format better....will there be a script that can make the site display in the old format??

Dink: What did you like about the old format in particular? We just rebuild the framework, but will be revising much of the visual structure in coming weeks.

First off, congratulations on the new framework, and many thanks for your hard work! It's much appreciated.

I can think of a few things that should get fixed. In the past, descriptions could contain formatting (using asterisks like *this* for bold, etc.) -- but now the support is gone, and my beautiful, colorful, image-laden descriptions now appear like blocks of mangled text. For example, see the description to my most popular script: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/2284 .
Second, I used to update my scripts by uploading a file from my computer. This is an obvious step in my workflow because I write and debug my script on my computer first. Now I'm missing that option (or am I wrong and it's there?).

One thing I like: It's cool that you can now edit the "concise" description of a script (without having to delete it and reupload it to do so).

That's it for my first impressions. Like others -- I think the visual front could be tweaked a little, although the overall structure and design seems solid and well thought-out. Could I offer my ideas or perhaps even "services" as an amateur graphic designer who cares for this project?

Lior Z,

We need to make a pass and convert things like *foo* into foo.

Currently the idea is that the "quick" description can only have text (and newlines). The body can contain presentational html. In talking with several of the prolific script writers, a concern was brought up that by using chars like ^*#... for markup it makes it harder to put snippets of javascript throughout the code. Unfortunately the current whitelist code doesn't allow you to specify color, but I'll work on that.

As far as uploading from my computer, this was disabled last minute and is the thing I'm working on right now. I hope to have it finished early today.

The front page definitely needs help. I'll start a topic about the "front page" where people can comment about what should be on it.

I disagree with Lior Z.
The support for that kind of text was very poor on this site and had many problems,
we are all developers here, we know our basic HTML, why use other stuff?
In my script I tried to write users can filter a website with adblock and wrote *somewebsite.com* which is the format for adblock filtering with wildcards, this came out as bold and I never really found a way to explain myself.

also I would like to request that you won't bring back those fade-in fade-out login/register which drove me crazy becuase of thier lack of support for firefox's auto-save-password feature.

To make myself clear: my concern is that the current formatting syntax is broken. I was unaware that there was an alternative way to format descriptions. In fact, I agree with you, Assaf, that presentational HTML is better than the former, non-standard, syntax. I had my share of trouble with it too. If there was a way to automatically convert the former syntax to HTML it would be great. Is there any guide about the HTML tags currently allowed in descriptions?
(P.S. -- "Lior" is my given name, which most people use when we speak.)

Regarding the Current Status - that was in "beast" the forum software we integrated. You are right that active is just the posting to the board, and isn't accurate since comments, scripts, installs, ... aren't included.

And about the converting of pervious scripts format - perhaps we make a button that converts the markup to html and saves it.

Thanks for your explanation Jesse!

thorbenhauer: A lot of those users are spam. We are working at clearing them up as quickly as possible!

No need to hurry in this issue! There are more important things, I think. And you're doing a great job! It's just a small thing I stepped over exploring the new site. I'm really looking forward to see all the new features going live :)

I see the last updates of the scripts are actually working, which is great since it was annoying when the previous layout would say it was always updated everyday for ever single script.

Hope to see the "Userscripts.org Favorites" script updated so I can see my favorites again, though I assume the script will be useless later on since I heard there will be a favorite scripts section added to the site sometime in the future.

peuh, Replace id='menu' with id='nav' on line 20 in that script and you have a system which works (mostly) again (for spending a couple of seconds on this) :).

Further updates:

Around line 108: Comment out var link and var script lines and replace with new script definition as follows and you have the full system working.

// orig var link = document.evaluate("//div[@id='content']/div[@id='name']/a[1]", document, null, XPathResult.UNORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null);

// orig var script = link.snapshotItem(0);

var script = document.evaluate("//div[@id='content']/h1", document, null, XPathResult.UNORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null).snapshotItem(0);

Many thanks Junk Blocker! *high five*

Good job posting this on the script's page as well, will help the others for sure, :)

I love that you work so hard on that site, and I understand the difficulties you had with tags, but the current configuration makes it difficult to find what I want. I often came to Userscripts.org not looking for anything in particular, just browsing categories and seeing what I could find.

But I do have a suggestion. I am a big user of the networking/bookmarking site StumbleUpon. In StumbleUpon, when you submit a site you must first select a basic preset category from a pull-down menu before you can put in specific tags. If there was a predefined list of categories like "Annoyances", "Download", "Login", people could browse scripts.

Jeremy: have a look at the post about Tags, which basically discusses the same point. Consider also that (a) many scripts can't be pigeonholed that easily, (b) the list of categories might grow very long to be comprehensive enough, (c) you may not be able to determine in advance WHICH categories to create. Anyway, why tags don't fit the bill in your opinion?