Didn't know this existed as one of the first ones! I'm actually glad to have this script around. I rarely need this extra functionality but thank you for having it available and being there for your user base. :)

Nice timed caching of the retrieved data which is perfect for this script. Current eval usage is used in place of JSON object for full backwards compatibility.

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

Well I've been using this script every time I go to YT... I think most people know that I'm bandwidth conscious by now and this helps quite a bit especially if I'm just casually browsing YT and don't want to overuse my bandwidth at various sites. Occasionally the Author disappears for a little while but we all have our own lives to attend to. I'm grateful for your efforts on this script. :)

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

Current version is a facebook hack. Script is not my original nor does it do anything intended from it.

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

UPDATE: Now that I have removed the useless portion of using this script by building my own I can up your rating.

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

Unfortunately this script has failed to meet with the current theme integration and other scripts. You argue too much and I most definitely don't like the look and feel of UI in this script now. You have also stated clearly that you are no longer going to make it compatible with a particular script which includes many others therefore this merits a 1 star rating. Wish you didn't have such a hard head. :\

With lots of encouragement to overcome this scripts issues and the the ScriptWrights persistent stubbornness to overcome especially with not wanting to learn things for himself... I rate the 1.0.7 version of this script well and useful to the Community at large here on USO.

See also this topic.

• 5 stars (EXCELLENT) - Not only does everything it claims, but it is significantly more useful than scripts of similar nature. This script is likely to be one you use often and you highly recommend it.
• 4 stars (GOOD) - Useful and easy to use, though not necessarily special. This script is recommended but may be more suited for some people over others.
• 3 stars (PASSABLE) - May have some design issues and/or some missing features. Any problems it has are not drastic enough to recommend against, and some people may still find it useful. Recommended for those who need it and are willing to give it a try.
• 2 stars (POOR) - Script is of low quality, usability, or just doesn't do what it says it should. You are recommending against this script, while noting that it might have some redeeming value for a few people.
• 1 star (BAD) - Script either doesn't work correctly or is utterly useless. You can't think of any significant reason why someone should give it a try and are recommending that it be avoided completely.

I had a really difficult time trying to figure out how to rate this script.

Considering this is not something new for Userscripts.org and you do seem to have a following I had to weigh in a lot more factors than I usually do.

As you are aware I attempted to add some understanding to your brazen and brash attitude towards the site Owners, Admins, Users and ScriptWrights which has mixed results.

• You purposed the script as a general blocklist
• You then repurposed it to a Distributed Denial of Service Attack by needlessly pulling full script source on the main site pages and that is when you caught the attention of Userscripts.org and other interested ScriptWrights
• You seem to have made a genuine effort at addressing my shared concerns at first
• You then blatantly defied any advice that was given to you which is always your prerogative however it will be your undoing
• Occasionally you took someones advice as an afterthought, but begrudgingly and aggressively whip lashed your User base when you didn't agree with it.
• You falsely trigger updates which also uses more bandwidth and will always be considered update spamming
• Your presumption on your homepage gave me a chuckle claiming that all low reviews are from scammers. There is no entitlement to only have high reviews. There is also no requirement for any User to be shunned at their opinions as well if they aren't a ScriptWright. The User base is what makes a ScriptWright not the other way around... I remind myself of this often when evaluating something that has come into my scope.
• Your inability to show your OSS license is also disappointing. I would suggest that you fix this and make sure that you aren't violating the licenses of other code that you have derived routines from.

While your intentions may be noble by nature they are definitely plagued with prejudice. I am reminded of a similar instance where another ScriptWright came in with a blaze of glory... did her destruction covertly by lulling users into a false sense of security... and then was escorted off the premises in an equal blaze of glory. *cough Phasma*... I would hope that your intentions aren't of a similar nature.

You have claimed to be a novice ScriptWright however it is very evident that this is misinformation and is used to deceive your user base. Sure we all make mistakes which is why I didn't tag your script as broken when you added GM_info to your source the other day.

I chose two stars since you did appear to make an initial effort at reduction of traffic however your underlying hostility, reversion and duality kept it from being a three star. I have bolded the sections of the rating determination that apply to the current version of this script in an effort to hopefully prevent your misinterpretation. I already told you that polling 25 scripts source at any instance will never help you achieve a solid rating.

I have no desire and I definitely don't have the time to spend debating the issues presented to you or this review because I do have a life outside of Userscripts.org... and of course my own script updates. This is something that you don't currently understand about peer review and other people on the site.

You have potential to make this into a viable script for the masses... The choice has always been yours... Don't throw it away. :)