Because it's your userscripts.org

By pw — Last update Nov 29, 2009 — Installed 12,974 times.

Archived Comments (locked)

in
Subscribe to Archived Comments 36 posts, 14 voices



Nov 30, 2007 10:43pm
pw Script's Author

Sorry to be snippy about Notepad! Does it have wordwrap? That might help, depending on what it is you want to edit. And I keep my arrays like this:


var array = {
"aa", "ab",
"ba, "bb",
...
}

which makes for easier editing.
 
Nov 30, 2007 9:11pm
pw Script's Author

I use mousepad, an xfce4 add on GNU/Linux. If it's not compatible with Notepad, that's news to me, and not something I much care about.
 
Nov 30, 2007 8:56pm
ironside User

OK so it's faster

But is one hell of a bitch to edit!

Not very well set out, Maybe its the editor your'e using but its shit in notepad my usual editor.

When you sorted that out then maybe i'll use this script again, but for now its not for me.
 
Nov 29, 2007 4:43am
pw Script's Author

I've done nothing to slow it down (any more that is). The more scripts rejected by title and description, the fewer scripts have to be rejected by author (which slows things down a bit) and @includes (which slows things down a bit more). I find with Adblock rejecting google-analytics things speed up a bit, and if I remove ALL scripts from the userscripts.org page (using my Script Remover script, speed also seems to improve. (Install the Script Remover before this script to see that benefit.)

But it's probably my synchronous XMLHttpRequests which make the script slow, if it is. The faster your connection the better, for this as for so many other things!
 
Nov 29, 2007 12:28am
ironside User

extremly slow now for some reason :)
 
Nov 27, 2007 1:01am
pw Script's Author

Sorry about that - the script makes synchronous 'XMLHttprequest's, which it needs to do in order to remove by author after collecting author information. The downside is that a synchronous request blocks out everything else. You could comment out the author-related functions as well, but then you'd only have rejection by title and description, which this was supposed to improve upon! It's pretty fast if you have broadband access; I suspect it might be painfully slow - as your experience suggests - if not. I should have warned about that!
 
Nov 27, 2007 12:24am
Rudi Pittman Scriptwright

Love the script but it locks my entire firefox session for 15+ seconds on each page load..can't get to other tabs..downloads in downthemall...anything...had to remove it. :( ...and yes I tried stubbing out rejectincludes..didn't seem to help.
 
Nov 26, 2007 5:53pm
wmblewett Scriptwright

GREAT script! I'd just about given up on USO... thank you so much.
 
Nov 25, 2007 6:00am
Mathemajor Scriptwright

Hats off to you, pw. This is quite a clean, well-documented script with, as you say, minimal overhead. I was planning on developing something like this myself, but it would have taken me quite awhile given my limited experience...not to mention the end result would probably be a lot messier. Thanks again and keep up the good work! : )
 
Nov 25, 2007 2:53am
pw Script's Author

Thanks - I just noticed, and corrected, the misspelling myself. (Annoying, as I spent a fair amount of time getting the script to work!)

It slows down page loading only a little for me, and it's worth it to avoid the (s)crap! And, unless the 25 scripts per page limit is made adjustable by script, you're right, I can't do much about it. I'm actually amused by pages which show up empty because there was nothing but nonsense there, but I can see how that would be frustrating.
 
Nov 25, 2007 2:47am
Kylor Hele User

Works, but slows down page loading a lot. Also, unfortunately, does not (and probably can't) repopulate pages with the correct amount of scripts after removal, so some pages have around 6 results.
Also you spelled userscripts.org wrong.

I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm just pointing out problems and you probably can't do much about them.