about the update function
|
|
I think it's not a good idea to make a request to "http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/29222" every time every page loads.
Imagine about some thousands people surfing some hundreds of pages every day means at least 1000 x 100 x 66KB (66kb is the site of the requested page) = about 6,600 GB !!! if my maths are correct this is a tremendous load for a free site like userscripts.org and I think that thinks like that can bring the site down eventually. |
|
|
Something to keep in mind. Although no one from the site has complained, I will look into a more efficient method of checking for updates. Yah. |
|
|
I do care and I've emailed. The problem isn't a single script but when many scripts do this. At one time I was getting 5000 req/s because several scripts did what you did and pinged userscripts.org every time greasemonkey activated which was every page view, and every iframe, ... Some forums/games were causing 10+ reqs per page view because of iframes and frames in general. This script has hit the server over 20k times in the last hour. :( Mistakes happen - lets get this updated so it doesn't get worse :) |
|
|
Jesse,
Yah. |
![]() ![]() |
I'm sorry to bring back an old thread, but I think a preference that allows us to choose not to auto check for updates would be very good. I leave my computer running iMacros or other automatic scripts and honestly it's a bit annoying to come to a halted browser with a message saying that you're redirecting me to the install page of a script that I hardly pay any attention to. That's on one hand, on the other, that's a lot of page views (hence, a lot of requests that put unnecesary strain both on my browser and my crappy internet provider.) All this checking also assumes that a user always wants or is benefited from having the latest and greatest version. Sometimes a user only wants things to work a certain way, and only when/if problems arise, check manually for an updated version that might fix broken things. |
![]() ![]() |
Pablo Ruiz,
|

