Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Computerworld publishes top 10 Firefox extensions to avoid, needs work
Computerworld has a recent article that lists 10 Firefox extensions that they believe users should avoid, with a subtitle stating "Just because an extension is popular doesn't mean it belongs in your Web browser." Unfortunately, the criteria used to determine what should be avoided seems very loose; everything from "so you don't hurt yourself due to your own ignorance", to more self-serving interests like ensuring that readers actually see the ads on Computerworld's website. Some inarguably essential extensions are on it, making this list pretty difficult to accept. Greasemonkey, for example, is listed as an extension to avoid. The author clarifies that at the very least if you're going to use it, be careful about which user scripts you use. While there's nothing wrong with that sentiment, it's one that goes without saying for any user that is sophisticated enough to be using an extension that exists as a way to actively modify web content locally in your browser.
Similarly, Computerworld lists AdBlock and AdBlock Plus as extensions to avoid, simply because they attempt to block all online advertising. Truthfully, these extensions aren't great for online publishers, but to be fair they do make for a significantly better web browsing experience. This recommendation doesn't appear to be made in the reader's best interests.
While an article that lists extensions that should be avoided seems like a good idea, it should be based on some sort of specific criteria, like extensions that have stability, performance or security flaws. A few recommendations on the list fall into this category, but the list is pretty inconsistent in this regard.
The list of extensions that probably shouldn't have made this list is longer than those that belong on it. If you're a computing neophyte, Computerworld's list might apply to you. For anyone that has consciously chosen to download a 3rd party browser like Firefox, you're probably more than capable of figuring out how to responsibly use these extensions if they have features you'd like to use.
Comments
3
Subscribe to commentseric.jamesApr 16th 2007 9:33AM
The problem with the ComputerWorld article is that it is trying to be two types of articles in one. It is trying to review the Firefox extensions at the same time it is trying to provide a true "DO NOT USE" list. The criterion for these two types of article are different. If the author wants to provide his views on the usability of extensions then that should be in title of the article. What is provided as a "DO NOT USE" list is a confusing list of fully functional and useful (although not to the biased author). A "DO NOT USE" list should only contain extensions that do not work or are a security risk. The fact that the author thinks an extension is not easy to use is something for a review article where personal opinions are expected. Most of the extensions listed work as advertised (no pun intended) and are useful to a great many users. The ones selected by the author as not being useful are the ones that cause the most problems for ComputerWorld's advertisers.
ekim05Apr 16th 2007 10:47AM
Computer World also has a 20 must-have firefox extentions, in which Greasemonkey is listed again..?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011975
Bryan PriceApr 16th 2007 12:09PM
I've given up on Greasemonkey. Granted, I haven't tried since Firefox came out 2.0, but my browsing experience kept degrading and degrading. I tried to whittle down how many scripts I had, but pages where Greasemonkey shouldn't have been running were still slow as molasses. Removing Greasemonkey got me back my performance. YMMV. Mine certainly did.