- by Jivix fromwc3, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5I used to use noscript all the time. Since Quantum, though, it has just been a mess of issues for me. I was forced to uninstall today after Noscript decided to block me from visiting a majority of websites, including Google, despite it being explicitly allowed on my filter. Even setting to global "Allow all" did not work.
I really miss the speed and efficiency of the pre-Quantum Noscript. There is just a lot more clicking around and it's much harder to read the hierarchy of scripts.
- by Juri Müller, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5Ich bin umgestiegen auf UMatrix Soweit ich das beurteilen kann ist die Funktionalität besser als bei NoScript. Es werden alle urls sauber gelistet (mehr als bei NoScript) und man kann sehr gezielt entscheiden, was man freigeben will. Dadurch können ganz gezielte, fein justierbare Freigaben erteilt werden.
UMatrix hat doch deutlich MEHR Einstellungsmöglichkeiten! Die ganzen Spalten der Matrix einzeln verwalten, nicht nur Skripte, und das für jede Seite einzeln, geht aber auch global... Es gibt schwarze Listen, die man sich aussuchen kann... Alles das kann NoScript nicht.
Noscript ist das Addon von Gestern!uMatrix is OK if you want to disable annoying stuff. Notice, though, that you can do the same with NoScript, managing a whitelist (TRUSTED preset), blacklist (UNTRUSTED) and even CUSTOM per-site settings.
If you're puzzled about how to configure white/black lists on NoScript, please check these:
Hope it helps
- by Firefox user 13639687, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5Used the classic version for years and was perfect but found the new one frustrating and awkward. I found the new UI unintuitive and more frustrating to use, it was easier to understand after the guide I saw a few days after the new one was published but still clunky and awkward to use and not user friendly at all. I've switched to Umatrix in my orange FF57 install because it is quicker/easier to use for me and more clear and intuitive. NS10 seems to be more UX design principles of looking simple and streamlined at the expense of intuitive informative less pretty design of classic NS.
The new style may suit some people more and hopefully bring more new users of that type in and do well. All my family, colleagues and friends bar 1 have abandoned it as found it none user friendly and Umatrix more their thing though so I find it hard to recommend. All the folks I imagine like the new style are ones more likely to use Chrome over FF IMHO. If it seems to go the other way and more users abandon than adopt it hopefully the implimentation will change and I may be back. Still worth trying if it sounds like your thing but not for me. Either way I appreciate the work the dev put in over the years and don't mean this as a criticism of him but more the existing implimentation and hope the feedback helps somehow and NS project does well regardless of those like me leaving it.
- by gmon, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5The main problem is trying to find out why something, a video, etc., will not load. I see nothing but a plain blue noscript icon with npo indication that noscript has blocked anything, so I have to guess that noscript is blocking whatever element is not loading, and have to scroll to find that something has in fact been blocked even though the icon shows just a plain blue S. Isn't there some way by now to have it show that something is blocked??
- by Simón, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5Please, explain in the add-on description why does NoScript now ask for a new permission to "download files and read and modify the browser's download history".
Besides, the new UI quite sucks, but the rules list semi-transparency seems to be what makes the NoScript Settings page sluggish.
- by Azarilh, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5Whoa, this new version is great! Jus' like 2 girls 1 cup!
PS: Why NoScript need to read the download history now? LOL
EDIT: Ok, that's fine. Thank you for the reply. Still, the new version is unfriendly, like others say too.
EDIT after 2 years i tried it again: UI still sucks, my rating remains 2/5. Too bad.Unlike "legacy" add-ons, WebExtensions cannot interact with your filesystem directly. The restored "Export" feature actually goes through the browser.downloads API to let you save your configuration locally.
- by Firefox user 13515039, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5In its current state, it is barely serviceable. It is still better than nothing, I know, because when I disabled it I started getting hijacked by rogue webpage scripts again. But it has alot of catching up to do to be as pleasing as the pre-Quantum version.
That annoying, user unfriendly popup window really has to go. The previous version had a more discreet and tolerable messaging UI at the bottom of the screen. Now it is in popup window format at the top of the page, in your face to annoy you very quickly.
And a suggestion of a much needed feature. An option dedicated to automatically allowing Facebook scripts. Since nearly every website now days has scripts for Facebook, it is getting tiresome to have to allow Facebook with nearly every website I visit.
- by Roelof, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5The addon doesn't save trusted, untrusted and custom entries. Maybe the plugin stores information in non-persistent storage (which is cleared with any privacy-aware configuration).
This makes the plugin unusable, as re-allowing all services every single time is way more time consuming than just blocking scripts alltogether.
And even if you manage to save settings, they're not synched, so users who use two or more devices need to re-apply settings every time, on every. single. device.
The old version worked a whole lot better, it's a shame this level of quaity has not yet been achieved on the new WebExtension version.
- by Firefox user 13577838, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5The latest extension for Firefox Quantum is a real PITA because whitelisted sites are not saved, so they have to be recreated every time FF restarts. Extremely annoying and time consuming.
- by Firefox user 13372577, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5It does work (more or less) so I cannot justify a 1-star rating. But like others have said, this is not the NoScript we knew and loved. And while I know there is a temptation to just blame Firefox57 for old addons no longer working well, the truth is that we cannot blame Firefox57 for the dreadful new interface that NoScript has, nor for the buggy way it works (forgetting your settings, for example).
I don't want to be overly harsh here. For many years this developer has given us a fantastic product that millions of us found "essential". For that he must be commended. However, the new NoScript no longer has a place in my little "arsenal of defence". I've moved on.
If anyone is interested in alternatives, I find uBlock Origin is enough for my needs, provided the "I'm an advanced user" option is checked off and third party scripts / frames are globally blocked ("medium blocking mode", as per the author). If you want more power, there is uMatrix - still not a 100% replacement for NoScript but good enough for the vast majority of people.
- by Firefox user 13560145, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5Had better experiences with NoScript years ago. The new version with the current Firefox is bad. It forgets settings and is buggy. I'am using ScriptSafe now. It's the same as under chrome. This addon works fine.
- by Anonymous, 4 years agoRated 2 out of 5The new version has to be fixed full stop. The UI did not need to be fixed. And now the app does not remember settings on some sites. I'm thinking about uninstalling this until it is back up to its previous quality.