Basic but still good. I recommend it. Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Works fine in FF2 on WinXP, basic functionality, easy right-click menu item, not much customization.

I'd like to see domain and link type restrictions, but it does what it says as is.

The only con is that I was checking multiple pages back to back on a Google search results page (Gooooooogle), and it pinged Google so much that then my google.com queries were blocked. Ha! I guess be careful how many links you're going to check from one domain.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.3). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Thanks for update ff3.0! This extension is very good.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.3). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Version 0.6.3 is available at the author's site. Compatible with FF 3.0, and works fine in simple testing.

This has been an excellent tool in the FF 2.0 days; glad to see it updated for FF 3.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.3). 

Still not compatible with FF 3.0 Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Despite its claim to be compatible with FF 3.0, version 0.6.2 was rejected as incompatible.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.2). 

Firefox 3 compatibility Rated 5 out of 5 stars

I have patched-for-3 version of numerous extensions that won't migrate at http://quitt.net/mozilla/extensions/ (Caveat Emptor)

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.2). 

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

This doesn't work.

I tried it, and it doesn't make any http requests.

Also, the author's website (listed in the 'support section') doesn't have any way to get support.

In short, don't bother with it.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.2). 

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Excellent, just waiting for the FF 3RC1 Version

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.2). 

Not with frames Not yet rated

Doesn't work on pages with frames, neither on the main frame nor (by context menu) on any subframe.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

useful for more that WebDev Rated 5 out of 5 stars

This is a handy little add-on, and although the methods can also be accessed via a bookmarklet and/or Greasemonkey, it is useful enough for it to be given a place as an extension.

It can be used on any webpage that has links embedded in the code, including files that are localised to your personal hard-drive.

Yous can use it on internet archives' old file holdings to check if the next level of links from that page are also in it. It can be used to check websites that are your responsibility to maintain for dead links. When you run across a page of links that you have an interest in following, it can tell you which are dead ends before you traverse to them. there are many other instances where this comes in handy.

It is a good extension, which has never acted badly the whole time I have used it, and it was among the first extensions I tried.

The detailed review for this plug-in by thnidu on February 13, 2008, also deserves 5 Stars. I was not aware that the list could be acquired through the console.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Works great !! Rated 4 out of 5 stars

This add-on utility is extremely handy. When I have to change a link in several locations, I can immediately verify I didn't mis-type something. My thanks to the author(s).

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Good but could easily be much better Rated 4 out of 5 stars

This is a pretty good plug-in and I'm glad I got it, but I have some issues with it.

I don't see any documentation except this page and the Options tab. For that to work, an app must be self-explanatory. This one isn't, in some significant ways. It gives two kinds of output: highlighting in four colors, and a short-lived display in the status line.

1. The highlighting is described on the Colors tab. It labels links as Valid, Invalid, Misc, and Skipped. Valid and Invalid are obvious. Skipped must refer to the Exclusions tab, so why not call it Excluded? But what is Misc? It seems to refer to valid local files, because when I tested by adding a link to a nonexistent local file it came out as invalid; but Misc is a useless descriptor.

[ADDED NOTE: Apparently "Skipped" is also used for links that timed out when being checked. It makes sense to distinguish them from Valid and Invalid links, but lumping them in with links that are skipped because they're on the Exclusions list means that I have to look at each Skipped link to see whether it's Excluded or Timeout. On a 65-page site like the one I'm working with this could get tedious.

I find that the Exclusions apply whether the match is in the hyperlink or in the linked text. That is, using the default Exclusions list ("logout,signout,delete,remove,exit"), all the following come up as Skipped:
- exit
-
- ]


2. When I click the toolbar button (a very nice addition!) the status bar of the browser displays a small pale blue disk, which turns deep blue behind a "clock hand" that's paced by a percentage report. On the page I'm currently checking, it finishes at "18 of 18 (100%)". That must mean there are 18 links on the page, and they're all good, right? Wrong, in two ways:
A: This page has 17 links on it. If you count the w3.org link in the "html" tag there are 18; but another page has 5 href hyperlinks PLUS the w3.org link, for a total of 6, not the 5 that LinkChecker reports.
B: This page has the test link mentioned above, to a nonexistent local file. So there are 16 good links out of 17 total, or 17 good out of 18 if you count the w3.org link, and either way the total doesn't report the bad one.

It would be much more helpful to see a report telling me that there is or is not an invalid link. As it is, the status bar display just tells me how far along the search has gotten, and I still have to look down the page at every link to see if it's good or bad, and then look at every Skipped link to see if it's excluded because of text or filename or not (in which case it presumably timed out).

[ADDED NOTE 2008-02-22: It turns out that the results ARE available as a list. Click the Tools menu and you'll see an entry "Error Console". That's not mentioned on the web page. Add one point for the feature, subtract it for failure to document.]

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Simple & efficace Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Génialement simple.
Pour vérifier par exemple les liens de mon annuaire online. Super. Merci.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Nobel Peace Prize? Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Well, maybe not, but that's the level of aggravation this add-on has saved me.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Great Product Rated 4 out of 5 stars

POSITIVES
Simple, clean, reliable tool to check whatever page you want, probably ones you're designing and want to catch your own coding mistakes, etc.

NITPICKY NEGATIVES
Gets an 8/10 only because I wish it did an easier check on my own bookmarks. It can do a less-seamless job if you export your bookmarks to a file, then check THAT page for dead links. An extra step, but it gets the job done.

OVERALL
A useful add-on, I'd recommend it.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Simple and works great Rated 4 out of 5 stars

As a dmoz editor who must often review web sites I really love this extension. This is also a must have for webmasters who need to check links on their sites. The one thing I miss is a SeaMonkey version, since it's my primary browser.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1). 

Nice and Easy Rated 4 out of 5 stars

Easy tool to use. I think it have to be with stop button, report after scan, and clean scan result from page.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.6.1).