What happened to AMO!!!!

Post by **Daifne** » April 8th, 2008, 7:29 pm

Thank you very much for stopping in, Basil.

Any word on the bug where IE can't download anything from AMO (relevant for Thunderbird users not using Firefox) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415843

Post by **James** » April 8th, 2008, 7:34 pm

Welcome to the mozillaZine forums Basil

KLB · Post by **KLB** » April 8th, 2008, 9:07 pm

Thank you for checking in Basil. It is greatly appreciated to know that folks are listening, and that you are seeing past some of our more "spirited" comments. I have been noticing that bugs are starting to get checked off of the AMO list, which is very encouraging.

I think the sudden shock of getting hit by the new AMO site and its more serious bugs kind of set folks back and turned up the anger quite a bit. I think the reception of the new AMO site would have been much better if it had been left on the beta domain longer with a greater effort made to get folks to try out the new site and help sort out the more serious bugs before it was launched on the primary domain.

Hopefully we all can get past the last couple of weeks and work together to improve AMO.

Philip Chee · Post by **Philip Chee** » April 8th, 2008, 10:00 pm

Basil, the main complaint appears that the AMO team is concentrating on eye-candy at the expense of functionality and clarity.

Phil

makondo · Post by **makondo** » April 8th, 2008, 10:55 pm

bhashem wrote:... I've read over the entire thread (240+ msgs) and have captured the feedback ... we'll continue to improve it...

Thanks for stopping by but it looks like you've missed a few posts (240?). Every one of the last 'improvements' made the site less and less usable. Just stop 'improving' it, please! While not exactly very attractive looking, it used to be at least easy to navigate and get what you'd come there for w/out major irritation. Not any more.
Personally, i have nothing to add - everything i'm ... upset about has been said above. If you can take it all and give the site back to its users ... TIA! (yeah, right!).

ake79 · Post by **ake79** » April 9th, 2008, 5:26 am

Site re-design leads to an uproar. Big surprise. Any major site re-design that I have seen, has some people complaining over changed appearance (IMHO, matter of taste) or lost functionality (IMHO, genuine grievance).

Though in AMO's case I'm surprised (and somewhat dissappointed) in two things. First, AMO has a preview site, so why wasn't it used. Spam addon owners: "come and preview new AMO before it's released". Post the same thing in mozillazine. I'm sure people would have caught at least some the problems that you now have to deal when it is already in production. Some things are simply broken and its taking a long time fix them.

And second. The new AMO was released two weeks ago and this is the first comment that I've seen from AMO people acknowledging that everything didn't go as smooth as everybody would have hoped. I think that community deserves better communication.

bhashem wrote:I've read over the entire thread (240+ msgs) and have captured the feedback.

ok, but what did you capture. I mean, everybody here has their opinion what's wrong with the new AMO. But I would really like to hear your opinion because that's the opinion that matters. What works and what did you do wrong, if anything. And if you filter out the name calling and other infantility in this thread, do you think that the criticism here is justified.

Personally I just upload my extension to AMO and don't really browse it that much. So the two things I'm happy about the new AMO is that sandboxed addons are more visible now and the statistics page. But what really pisses me off, that some seemingly simple things simply don't work and I have no idea when they are going to be fixed. Like now that discussions are gone I would really like to use support url but can't (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426430) and as my extension approaching its first anniversary and got its first review today (not by friend or otherwise begged), I can't see it (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426469).

(Also, if anyone is interested: http://blog.fligtar.com/2008/04/09/amo- ... n-authors/)

KLB · Post by **KLB** » April 9th, 2008, 5:33 am

Reviews are "sandboxed" for moderation and can take several days to become visible to the public. I have noticed, however that there also appears to be some review counting errors as there are three different review counts for my theme on AMO.

RNiK · Post by **RNiK** » April 9th, 2008, 7:37 am

awsco wrote: Here are most of my basic complaints:

1. I don’t care what is recommended, especially if the recommendations are old. Chances are I already have them if I wanted them. A recommended section for new users should be available, but once you’ve used it, it’s pretty much a waste of time and should not be the introduction to the site. New users are only new users once and then they are just the rest of us. When I go to a reference book, I go to the Table of Contents first. I don’t go to page 10 of the first chapter. If it has an index it’s even better. I don’t need a cartoon in either place.

2. You should be able to see immediately what is new or updated. That is the reason that one goes there.
• I don’t need AMO to think for me.
• I like to look at an update before I install it. Sometimes the older version is better, kind of like the site.
• I frequently look at what add-ons or themes have been updated BEFORE I upgrade FF or TB and wait until an acceptable number are available so I don’t have a reduced capability.

3. The basic data provided on the screening or index page for each item should be:
• Title
• Add-on or Theme VERSION NUMBER
• DATE OF VERSION
• AUTHOR
• FF or TB VERSIONS SUPPORTED
• Brief description of the capability
• It would also be useful if an Expected Date of the next release was available.

UHMMM...

This reminds me of bug 425382.

Also, take a look at this thread.

Post by **LoudNoise** » April 9th, 2008, 8:38 am

FYI-
Should anyone care to see a real world reason why "Get More search engines..." should be fixed see this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=646969

Post by **steviex** » April 9th, 2008, 11:47 am

Also on the topic of Search Engines... Where has the link to Mycroft gone ? At the moment, the impression is that the only Search Engines are the two dozen or so on AMO ?
The old site, had a link to Mycroft at the bottom of the page... Is Mycroft no longer a recommended resource any more ?

the-edmeister · Post by **the-edmeister** » April 10th, 2008, 4:05 am

Over the past week or so, my mind has repeatedly reflected on all the "boners" that Mozilla "has pulled" regarding AMO, this time Mozilla may out-do the fiasco that started like 3 weeks after Firefox 1.0 was released, when the only reliable source for new extensions for like 2 to 3 months was TEM! The only extensions available from AMO were for older versions of Firefox or the very few 1.0 versions where the authors got their's submitted before AMO was changed to a "new look" and everything fell apart.

Ed

Post by **LoudNoise** » April 10th, 2008, 5:39 pm

FYI

Yet another usability test.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=647414

the-edmeister · Post by **the-edmeister** » April 11th, 2008, 2:35 am

Yes, I saw that thread. It seems that the more automated they try to make the process for users who don't know their sss from a hole in the ground around computers, the harder they make it for users who have a modicum of experience or for those of us who may consider them self a power user.

Ed

Post by **LoudNoise** » April 11th, 2008, 8:14 am

Actually, it is worse then that. We have no reason to believe awalt and Dave Rado are anything more then normal users.

VanillaMozilla · Post by **VanillaMozilla** » April 11th, 2008, 11:22 am

The criticisms have definitely been noticed.

What happened to AMO!!!!

Re: AMO Team is listening...

Re: AMO Team is listening...