Marti
Scriptwright
  |
Well it's been a long and winding road but usoCheckup seems to have emerged as a grandiose, continuing, success!
 I thought it would be a good idea to show everyone the raw hits per month. Please note the green bar is what you may be interested in. There is currently a margin of error of approximately 1% due to some strange requests for the updater code... but all in all... humbly serving the USO community. Please feel free to join in the Discussion Group to discuss anything you like about usoCheckup... including what to do next for script development. The more input that is given, the better it will be. Many Thanks go to everyone who is participating and now onto the bar charts!    (TIP: Click images to enlarge... Last update 2013 10 31) (NOTE: I do not have the secure chart available at this time... sorry) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tim Smart
Scriptwright
|
You can see how many scripts have implemented USO Updater here: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Auserscripts.org%2Fscripts%2Freview%2F+"updater.usotools.co.cc"The Userscripts.org parser seemed to fail at linkify-ing the URL which I directly copied from the address bar, so I put it in a pre tag.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Tim Smart wrote:Try this link instead:http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Auserscripts.org%2Fscripts%2Freview%2F+"updater.usotools.co.cc"The Userscripts.org parser seemed to fail at linkify-ing the URL which I directly copied from the address bar, so I put it in a http://www.google.com/search?q=site:userscripts.org/scripts/review/+"updater.usotools.co.cc" Be sure to go to the very last page to get a more accurate count of any references used. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
2009 update of the graph in the above post. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sizzlemctwizzle
Scriptwright
 |
Marti wrote: Even more accurate if you get rid of greasefire duplicate results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22updater.usoto... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
sizzlemctwizzle wrote:This actually increased the found results on the last page ;) I understand what you mean though :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cface
Scriptwright
 |
err i thought the require was like
// @require http://usocheckup.dune.net/xxxxx.js?maxage=5 Have i been writing the wrong domain for all my scripts?! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Cface wrote:You are doing it correctly. :) Tim popped in with his version of an updater to tack on his statistics and we've all been chatting about it ever since... the topic kind of skewed to how to use google search properly from a hyperlink. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cface
Scriptwright
|
lol... oh silly google... Well i'm glad it was done correctly. TBH, ever since using your updater i've been a bit skeptic because it's a bit too simple to actually work :\
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Since the install counters have been out for a while I will post the Top 10 requests for usoCheckup on or near the end of the month. These requests include usage of @require to usoCheckup and also uso - installWith release wrapped requests but only on the non-SSL channel. As usual the charts above will show overall usage for the last 12 months. Below are the top specific hit stats for June 2013.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Since the install counters have been out for a while I will post the Top 10 (technically 20 ;) requests for usoCheckup on or near the end of the month. These requests include usage of @require to usoCheckup and also uso - installWith release wrapped requests but only on the non-SSL channel. As usual the charts above will show overall usage for the last 12 months. Below are the top specific hit stats for July 2013.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jefferson Scher
Scriptwright
|
Edit: This post may not be relevant to the particular scripts discussed in this thread. I did not check how their filters work. ---- I recently learned that Greasemonkey and Tampermonkey work differently with respect to @require. Greasemonkey saves the file indefinitely, while Tampermonkey depends on Chrome to cache the file. This is discussed in the following thread: http://forum.tampermonkey.net/viewtopic.php?f=1... As a result, retrieval counts are likely to be "inflated" in proportion to the number of Tampermonkey to Greasemonkey users. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Jefferson Scher wrote:I've known about that for quite a while which is why non-Moz products are filtered as best as possible and definitely not supported... hence the compatibility matrix. You should have seen it before they had it cached. ;) Jefferson Scher wrote:Good to have their linkage though... Thanks. :) Strange that people took this long to realize just how bad the other clones/engines are. I'll see if I can dig up the date it was figured it out from my perspective... here we go... looks like the initial discovery was around October 7th, 2010. :) Jefferson Scher wrote:Since they are filtered the assumption of this should be mostly incorrect but I understand what you were trying to prove... please try not to discourage people when you don't have all the facts... thanks for the reminder though. :) The only reason I'm posting these individual stats is to show those who are freaking out from the missing script install stats... mainly the rumor mill of the "USO is dead" bit... that it is clearly not dead. usoCheckup and installWith wasn't designed as a popularity contest... it is some functionality for some holes that GM had/has reintroduced. If the other browsers would get their bumms in gear and support some ECMAScript 6 syntax and even some 5.x (nearing year 6 of waiting), and of course not temporarily caching, I could release it and then yes the stats would definitely be messed up by any clones inability to handle @require and @resource correctly. RAW hits remember. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Since the install counters have been out for a while I will post the Top 10 requests for usoCheckup on or near the end of the month. These requests include usage of @require to usoCheckup and also uso - installWith release wrapped requests but only on the non-SSL channel. As usual the charts above will show overall usage for approximately the last 12 months. Below are the top specific hit stats for August 2013.
Sorry this is a little bit late but I was AFK for quite a bit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
So for the month of September I decided to alter the backend to refilter as best as possible to somewhere else to strip out non-compatible browser repeats from the charts. September was definitely a slower month but yielded very similar comparitive results to the month prior. The blue bar is currently compatible browsers and the green bar is currently combined browsers. This does not mean that one browser or the other is used more. What it does mean is that some scripts may be used more in other browsers. The "shortness" compared to the last months is due to the refiltering. The remainder is present in other unpublished charts. Since the install counters have been out for a while I will post the Top 10 filtered requests for usoCheckup on or near the end of the month. These requests include usage of @require to usoCheckup and also uso - installWith release wrapped requests but only on the non-SSL channel. As usual the charts above will show overall with some filtered usage for approximately the last 12 months. Below are the top specific hit stats for September 2013.
@Jefferson Scher It would appear that the other browsers (less) "intelligent" caching seems to be quite flawed. Most of the daily repeat customers that are kicked out of the filtered stats still came back the next day with the modified request. E.g. Those browsers ignored my servers instruction to come back in 30 days and came back within about the same day. There is strong precedence for making the conclusion that the non-compatible browsers are considerably less efficient. Basically the RAW interpretation of the stats was partially "skewed" (not "inflated" as exaggerated by your earlier post) however not fully for prior months since I've known about the issues with the other browsers/engines since 2010. Data analysis via statistics is not a favorite past time for me. There have been several meetings on this combined interpretation and this is what we came up with. So everyone feel free to develop your own conclusions with the available data and logistics. :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Marti
Scriptwright
|
Since the install counters have been out for a while I will post the Top 10 filtered requests for usoCheckup on or near the end of the month. These requests include usage of @require to usoCheckup and also uso - installWith release wrapped requests but only on the non-SSL channel. As usual the charts above will show overall with some filtered usage for approximately the last 12 months. Below are the top specific hit stats for October 2013.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Voices
