whats really going to hurt this is download.com's horrible registration policy. That site hit the dumps when the started that years ago.

Remember, that you won't get the giant download stats that some programs do, because you have the haus of a server cluster that is ftp.mozilla.org. Download.com's download numbers will be low because I will always get my copy of Fx from mozilla, and I'm not alone.

I agree with jon-the registration sux...it just wouldn't work

I'm on it. :)

Is it just me, or does download.com report the windows download of Firefox 0.9.1 as 6.19MB rather than the 4.7MB actual filesize?
This might also have a big effect on downloads.

I see that we have a 0.9.2 "minibranch" being cut.

What's the point in drumming up a whole bunch of votes for 0.9.1 if you know it's going to be obsolete very shortly?

Or have I misunderstood something?

done.

Already posted on Asa's Blog

This is not a good idea. The point of download.com is for people to browse around, notice something, review it, not bring all of the product fanboys to make the product seem rosier than it is.

When people see how rosy Firefox is and then stumble upon crashes, imcompatible sites, bugs, mini-browsing oddities, they'll think the 1000 comments are idiots and will conclude those weren't download.com regulars but just a bunch of fanboys.

With 0.9.2 coming this is a waste of time, and to the developers, make a good release rather than constantly updating.

If you're going to do this, you should at least wait until 1.0.

I added a comment!

I love Firefox

:)

The next target could be BetaNews/FileForum. It is quite a popular site.

Mozilla Firefox:
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1032985422/1

Mozilla Thunderbird:
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1057948436/1

Mozilla Suite:
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/942889097/1

Peter, I think you're wrong. The point of reviews at download.com is to give prospective downloaders the best possible information about the product so they can make an educated decision before downloading.

The Firefox community knows more about Firefox, it's features, it's capabilities, and yes, it's shortcomings. We are the ideal people to review Firefox and to tell people where it excels.

They are not, as you say, looking for reviews from random people browsing around the site. They are looking for reviews from people who have downloaded (hopefully from them) the software and who want to tell others whether or not it's worth the download.

We are not giving people a script to follow. We are not saying "give it rosey reviews." We are not telling people to go give negative reviews to the competition. We are simply asking people who have downloaded the Firefox software and used it, to go to download.com and tell other potential downloaders what they think of it -- good, bad, and ugly.

Download.com provides a reviewing mechanism for exactly that purpose and even if you don't approve of that, I don't see where you get to decide what their review mechanism is and isn't for.

Also, your suggestion that it's a waste of time and that we should wait for 1.0 is just silly. Why? It didn't reset at 0.9.2 and we're already into the top five most reviewed products in all of download.com. This is making a difference and we should continue.

--Asa

>>Peter, I think you're wrong. The point of reviews at download.com is to give prospective downloaders the best possible information about the product so they can make an educated decision before downloading.

Having fanboys review your product isn't educated.

>>The Firefox community knows more about Firefox, it's features, it's capabilities, and yes, it's shortcomings. We are the ideal people to review Firefox and to tell people where it excels.

What makes you think the community will tell people of it's shortcomings?

>>They are not, as you say, looking for reviews from random people browsing around the site. They are looking for reviews from people who have downloaded (hopefully from them) the software and who want to tell others whether or not it's worth the download.

Yes, if they downloaded from download.com that would be fair. ICQ links to download.com so all the ICQ fanboys can review it. But Firefox fanboys download from mozilla.org so it's not fair to send an army of fanboys to a download site they didn't even download from. You should at least link to http://www.download.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356-10299359.html?tag=lst-0-1

>>We are not giving people a script to follow. We are not saying "give it rosey reviews." We are not telling people to go give negative reviews to the competition. We are simply asking people who have downloaded the Firefox software and used it, to go to download.com and tell other potential downloaders what they think of it -- good, bad, and ugly.

That's funny, you're trying to sound fair. Most of the people that come to your site are like "Firefox Rulezzzzz!!!!!" There are no regulars that have a fair/bad view of Firefox. Also, reading the reviews, someone has already noticed that Firefox is not getting "fair" reviews

"Look at the time of the reviews"
The time of all the reviews were posted are VERY VERY CLOSE to eachother alot within seconds or minutes. Very shaddy

"just a tease"
I got all hyped up about ditching IE and getting this "super" new browser! After reading about 40 glowing recommendations, I downloaded - saved - the setup file, then closed all other programs and ran the setup from the Start/Run. It seemed to "extract" okay, but then nothing happened. I waited. Nothing happened. I waited some more, the screensaver (mine) kicked in. I disabled the screensaver and ran the setup again. Extraction was okay, then nothing. I got tired of waiting. I pulled up Windows Explorer and launched the setup from there. Again extraction was okay, and again I waited. I deleted the setup file, and then went back online and downloaded it again, this time choosing "Open". The file downloaded and extracted, but nothing else happened. After doing a search, I found that there were no other files except a gif file and a cookie (besides the setup file) on my computer. I've come to the conclusion that there really is no such thing as "Firefox", and that all of the glowing reviews are fabricated. I had always had "negative" feelings about Mozilla in the past, but was willing to give this new product a try. Boy, was I taken! Apparently, you really do get exactly what you pay for! I paid nothing and I got nothing!

And then you have your useless reviews

"This is IE wants to be when it grows up"

"excellent browser"
good for day to day use

>>Download.com provides a reviewing mechanism for exactly that purpose and even if you don't approve of that, I don't see where you get to decide what their review mechanism is and isn't for.

It isn't good ethics to tell all your fans to invade a site they probably never been to. What if all of the Opera fans who don't regular download.com review Opera? Or all of the Adaware fans? Then all products would be up in the 90s since fans=a bunch of people, download.com=random people looking for random products

>>Also, your suggestion that it's a waste of time and that we should wait for 1.0 is just silly. Why? It didn't reset at 0.9.2 and we're already into the top five most reviewed products in all of download.com. This is making a difference and we should continue.

You are in the top 5 most reviewed yet you are the 45th most popular. Not exactly fair.

Why wait until 1.0? There are a lot in Mozillazine Firefox Support people that tell some users "It's 0.9, what do you expect?" To that I say, 0.9 and we still can't install over old install, still crashes, UI weirdness, 1.0 probably won't be much better, but at least the people that flame users won't have an excuse.

> You are in the top 5 most reviewed yet you are
> the 45th most popular. Not exactly fair.

Look at all the top Internet app downloads in downloads.com, and at least four of them (MyIE2, Avant Browser, NetCaptor, Slim Browser) boldly force all users/reviewers to use download.com. (I recall one of the vendor also asks its users to write reviews for them). Also, some commercial vendors (e.g. RoboForm) asks their users to use download.com. download.com does not host files, and to me, this apparant download fudging is unfair practice.

I see nothing wrong with asking our fans to write reviews. It merely balances out unfair practices from competitors.

I saw this initiative, and I felt compelled to post my opinion. It was a negative review. I can't recommend this product until it has some kind of available update notification. This should be priority number one, right now, and I expect to see Firefox 0.9.3, with this functionality, by the end of next week.

>>Look at all the top Internet app downloads in downloads.com, and at least four of them (MyIE2, Avant Browser, NetCaptor, Slim Browser) boldly force all users/reviewers to use download.com. (I recall one of the vendor also asks its users to write reviews for them). Also, some commercial vendors (e.g. RoboForm) asks their users to use download.com. download.com does not host files, and to me, this apparant download fudging is unfair practice.

>>I see nothing wrong with asking our fans to write reviews. It merely balances out unfair practices from competitors.

I see nothing wrong with linking to download.com. If mozilla.org has 3 million downloads of Firefox while download.com has 500 thousand, then download.com doesn't represent the true popularity of Firefox. If mozilla.org linked to download.com, the numbers would still be the same(3 mil+500k)Nothing is manipulated.

With this campaign, you're encouraging people that don't care for download.com to write reviews like "WOO!!! Firefox rocks!" Again, only people that care enough about Firefox(those who love/hate)and only those that download from download.com should review. The old fair score of 80% is now a happy manipulated 97%, which leaves users thinking Firefox is perfect, which it is not.

It would be fair if mozilla.org linked to download.com and let those who care to review, not telling people that never would've thought of reviewing to review in the first place.

Well, we hit 1008 reviews, whether you agree or not (it may be somewhat unethical, yet II just posted a review, so I really shouldn't be talking).

Honestly, I don't really see the need for this, either. Download.com's review mechanism IS broken. A large chunk of the reviews are outright manipulated, and the rest are often just plain misinformed ravings. It's like Slashdot for the Wal-Mart set.

And of course c|net is going to tell you what a grand impact it would have on the success of the product. What are they going to tell you, that their site's useless?

I don't think drinking from the poisoned well is the best way to "balance out unfair practices".

re:only 79 - CNET DOWNLOADS COM.wants stuff from me.& manditory subscribe to some crap.

rev. re:only 79 - CNET DOWNLOADS.COM. It wants stuff from me & has manditory subscribtion to some crap I don't care about.
( Mozilla,2yrs)

I ask those who rant here to consider this. Marketing is spreading awareness, and every bit helps. Marketing isn't inherently fair or honest, so check the ideologies at the front page. What matters is that people learn about Firefox and get a good first impression, enough to try it out.

For all the time some people have spent bitching here about how it's such a bad idea, they could've instead made a review and helped to ensure the success of the best browser available. Odd priorities for some... My review is in.

Innovations like this are exactly what Firefox needs right now. Awesome work.

I only noticed this campaign today after a visit to the mozillazine site, so my review - which was full makrs with one or two critical commments on stuff that I'd like to see fixed - so my comment is a little late, but I think the posting campaign is an excellent idea: Firefox - and the other products of mozilla.org - is still far too little known among average users and has to battle against the unfair advantage of IE being already on the PC when a customer buys it, against a company that has pretty much an unlimited advertising budget. Since word of mouth is the only advantage users have against multi-billion companies word of mouth is what we should use to get the message across and if an organized effort helps to do that, and prods people to take action (I for one didn't even think about reviewing before the importance of it was mentioned in the original request), then I am all for it.

If everyone checked their ideologies at the front page, Mozilla wouldn't exist in the first place.

Today, only five reviews on www.snapfiles.com (ex webattack). OK, when they audit and publis my review there will be 6 :). Still we cannot miss such important site.

Bah, the review by Download.com's staff is abit unwelcome for successful Mozzie marketing:

"Though the app worked stably in our tests, we don't recommend using a preview version for mission-critical tasks."

I wonder if they would recommend MSIE for these "mission-critical tasks"...