That's what this person was complaining about, that they've seen a donation prompt once when they've initiated an image search with the extension.
There is no winning with some of these people, they want your time and the results of your work, they want it for free, and they want it to be neatly packaged and presented exactly the way that is most convenient for them. If you deviate even a little bit from their unreasonable expectations, you'll be promptly attacked.
You're making a pretty big leap from "users prefer these things" to "users expect these things".
Are you going to pretend you don't want things to be free, neatly packaged, and convenient? Who wouldn't want this?
And the idea that a four star review which starts with "A good extension." is an "attack" is absurd. Given it appears you expect your users not to express any preferences that aren't exactly what you've implemented, perhaps it's you who has unreasonable expectations?
That's not a threat of physical violence at all.
I suggest that these people express their criticism by not using the software in question. I doubt the typical purveyor of free-as-in-* software who's stuck between a rock and a hard place re: monetization particularly cares what somebody who doesn't understand the personal specifics of their dilemma thinks about their chosen solution to it.
Do you also suggest that when an application is ad-ridden or potentially malware-ridden to also just not use the app? Naturally that's an option, but the review is to warn other users of their experience.
I don't think death threats or calling people slurs is appropriate, but the review being complained about it is pretty mundane.
Is a restaurant owner pissed off about a one star review by somebody who didn't like the decor in the bathroom implicitly suggesting that people who receive food poisoning at a restaurant have no right to communicate that experience to other potential customers? Is a homeowner who puts out ant traps in her kitchen tacitly endorsing genocide?
I think there is such a vast gulf between displaying a mildly annoying message asking for donations and tricking someone into installing malware on their computer that anybody with a moderately intact sense of proportionality should have no trouble seeing it. So, no, I don't suggest that.
That is, in fact, exactly what reviews are for.
You really think it's more important for me to air my grievances about a free software's occasional donation nag messages than to tell other potential users it's a front for malware? That's honestly really strange, and I categorically disagree.
Reviews are much more useful for applications that stick around on the app store, or chrome web store, or whatever else, because well, they're still there.
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere productive, so I'm out.
As with most "love it or leave it" arguments, this is a transparent attempt to silence critics without actually bothering to engage with criticism, even if it's constructive.
Anything you put in front of a significant number of people will be criticized, and rightly so, because it's not perfect. Admitting things aren't perfect is the first step to making things better.
This argument is particularly disigenuous in the context of a discussion about YouTube, because YouTube is effectively a monopoly in a number of ways--it's effectively an argument that once a product reaches monopoly status, it can do whatever it wants and nobody can criticize.
Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.
the implied assumption being made here with this train of thought is that it is the author's imperative duty to make things better.
It is not. The author has zero obligation to make it better for anyone; they do it at their leisure and at their convenience.
Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.
Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?
The fact that the donation prompt was shown on startup doesn't undermine the reviewer's preference for not seeing a donation prompt at all. They're factually incorrect on a minor detail, but that doesn't change the larger point.
The rudest part of the review was them referring to the prompt as "panhandling", which is actually inaccurate, and if I were writing the review I would have used a milder, more accurate word there (maybe "soliciting"?). But in receiving any communication from anyone, it's unreasonable to expect people to communicate perfectly, and I try to understand people rather than criticize how they communicate their ideas. I certainly would not describe that as "disgusting" or "appalling".
And again, I'm not saying you should remove the donation prompt. In fact, if you made it show up every time until a user donated, I'd have no objections. Users wouldn't like this, but you're not obligated to fulfill users' every wish. Just as users aren't obligated to fawn over everything you do when it doesn't do what they want it to do.
Believe it or not, users can want things, and you can ignore what they want, and those are both okay!
Not particularly, but I also wouldn't really describe it as particularly disgusting or demeaning, either. It could have been worded better, but I'm not going to read too deeply into what random people on the internet say about me personally.
I find anything that's trying to interrupt what I'm doing like popup advertisements, cookie modals, and other things of the sort irritating because it forces me out of my workflow and requires action to continue what I was doing. It doesn't really matter how frequent it is. When i'm actively installing extensions I expect there to be a popup that is giving me information about the application. Dark Reader has a donation button featured on their popup from their action. I don't find this to be invasive even though it's there literally any time I interact with the extension. I ended up paying for the extension on safari because I liked it so much.
That's just my opinion, though. There's a lot of things that I find distasteful that would make me uninstall an application that seemingly don't bother the majority of people, and ultimately, you have a right to make your application how you see fit, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing it for what that user clearly views as distasteful.
> Adults learn to accept, integrate, and throttle their intake of criticism. If you haven't, you have some growing up to do.
Normally I would respond to this kind of thing in a different way, but the (apparently) lone HN moderator has previously informed me that stooping to the level of such attacks is just as bad in HN's eyes as being the one to make them in the first place. Accordingly, I place my rhetorical fate in the hands of the mod[s], and I look forward to seeing your rule-breaking comment removed.
If you want to say something, say it, if you don't, don't--why would I care? I've said my opinion and posturing that you're better than the discussion doesn't persuade anyone that you're right. It hasn't been my experience that when people self-censor, they later reveal they had some brilliant counterargument that we were all missing out on.
Install Signal on your phone and start using it, in a couple of months you will be shown a donation popup a single time when you open the app. At this point uninstall the app and contact Signal's development team to send them an invoice for your invested time that has now been ruined when that donation prompt has interrupted your messaging experience.
Also call them beggars and panhandlers, after all that's perfectly reasonable, and even respectable.
Either we should accept software with hidden misfeatures without complaining, in which case the user must receive compensation for their time, or we should complain and inform others of the misfeature.
Uninstalling the software in silence is an invitation for more spyware and trojaned software.
Interrupting someone's browsing experience to ask for donations is both providing a poor user experience and is in poor taste. I think it's fine to solicit donations in the browserAction popup, the settings page or even the initial installation window, but doing so elsewhere would deservedly be criticized.