Concerning blogspot.com:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/29891

Hope it improves the situation.

Concerning images.google.tld/images (search view):
The script source contains a switch to exclude images from blogger.com from link rewriting. Just uncomment the if-clause marked in the code. It's disabled by default to allow the use of proxy workarounds.

Concerning images.google.tld/imgres (framed result view):
I've discarded the idea of manipulating the top frame. Mainly because it's possible, that the picture can't be found anymore on the bottom frame. So it's not a reliable source to fetch the right folder path.
In cases where it can be found, the Blogspot Image Relinker script is also involved and the link will be rewritten in the bottom frame.

gutenberg.org relies on the referrer. Disabling the referrer in your browser will proof this. I'm using RefControl for such purposes. Either you can block all referrers or just block it for gutenberg.org.

If you don't want to use this extension you can fix this with Privoxy too. See http://www.privoxy.org/user-manual/actions-file...

Btw. I've implemented a test script for blogspot/blogger to relink the images. Seems to work. I'll throw it on the server over the day.

The filter works for me. After adding it to the user.action file, restarting Privoxy (not really necessary, but to be sure) and flushing the browser cache no download dialog appeared. I've tested many pictures, even from blogs, not only over the Google image search. This also doesn't interfere with my script. Of course if it's disabled you get the regular Google image search pages. But clicking on the top thumbnails in the framed result view, there is no download dialog.
Are you sure Privoxy is installed and configured correctly? What happens if you go to http://config.privoxy.org/show-status with Privoxy enabled?

For questions about Privoxy use the mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ij...
I think there is no official support forum.

About your script ideas:
It's worth a try. I'm not sure about the part in the framed result view, but for the blogs it should be possible. I'll give you an update soon.

It's a pita but there is no easy workaround on the greasemonkey side.

If you'll look up your google image search you'll find both types: images locations (containing /sxxx/) and link locations (containing /sxxx-R/) as you called them below.

In case of a image location you can add -h to the url. In the other case it's not that trivial:
see http://knownissues.blogspot.com/2007/11/clickin...

Without a XMLHTTPRequest it's not possible to get the right image location folder. And doing this for every picture will bloat network traffic and processing time.

Fixing half of the links doesn't really improve the situation, or do you think otherwise?

A better way of fixing this issue would be the use of a local proxy like Privoxy. You could filter the content-disposition HTTP response header and force your browser to render the image.

See http://www.privoxy.org/user-manual/actions-file...

A filter would look like this:


{ -filter +hide-content-disposition{block} }
.blogger.com


No problem. I've added co.uk in this script too. Of course you can maintain your fork.

Cool! Personal I don't like the idea of fetching the xml definition file over the web. But this could be avoided with the upcoming GM 0.8.* (@resource).
If the performance stays smooth, I'll give it a shot.

@euro22
Thanks for the hint! English elements added plus some other languages.

Doesn`t work for a long time? -> Last update Apr 8, 2008
On which site this script fails? Let me know.
Or is self-marketing really your intention? ;)

Nevermind! Thanks for your feedback!

@WOFall
Please provide a link to a page on which your problem occurs.
I checked it with Opera 9.27 and the latest script version. It worked for me.

eBay made some tiny changes, should be fixed by now.

Violating the GPL really sucks...

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/23572

It rewrites yahoo image search links to point straight to the pictures.

So I'm relieved :) If you think the description lacks clearness, feel free to give some improvement advices.
G'day!

Did you read the description above? Which point is exactly incomprehensible? This script offers a quick access to ones neutral and negative feedbacks via toolhaus.org. As an alternative it offers a quick access to the internal eBay function. By choice you can open these pages in an iframe.

Sorry, but this is not the place to advertise your sites. It's the place to discuss issues around this user script.

Seems that eBay has nothing else to do as messing around with their page layouts.

Should be fixed by now. Please report any problems with the new version.

@glitterninja
There is a form which redirects to the eBay feedback page. It just changed the url.
But my script covers this already with the mentioned site switch and the service provided by toolhaus is just much better.

Thanks to the crew behind toolhaus.org for delivering a great service for years!

With v0.4 a new switch is introduced. It integrates the toolhaus sites smoothly into the feedback pages.

Thanks to the crew behind toolhaus.org for delivering a great service for years!

With v0.4 a new switch is introduced. It integrates the toolhaus sites smoothly into the feedback pages.

Without an example I'm not able to investigate in the issue. Bummer.

@pigwet
Could you please provide a feedback page on which the script fails?

Not taken as an insult. I just didn't understand your intention. As it is now more precise, the average user doesn't browse on userscripts.org for useful scripts. Most of the people around here know how to install and use this kind of code. Therefore I think it's not really necessary to point out userscript-less solutions here. May be a link to a How-To-Use-Greasemonkey would be quite useful ;)

Hey dewd,
thanks for your comments, I really appreciate. But the credit goes out to the mysteriously unknown who wrote the initial script. In addition this one isn't very complex, there are many decent scripts out there which are the result of many hours of hard work.

Reviews, ok nice to have. But the main problem is, who does the job? Who hands out karma? On which basis? 'Highly ranked', 'excellent', 'insightful' - who decides about these classifications?
Have a look at amo. Do they _really_ check each extension and each update of an extension line by line?
Ok, I don't want to start a discussion about the last issue. The main point is: if you could beat them with technical limitations that don't need a hell lot of work to maintain, why not?