And the latest of the listed (ImageMetaViewer, uploaded Feb 17) was also removed very quickly after I reported it. But the others are still here - and a new MetaLens (uploaded Feb 20) too.
I guess, I try reporting the others one more time, and asks if I can get some kind of response on why, if AMO-admins doesn’t think they should be removed…
I hope my reports aren’t somehow blocking your reports in the moderation queue:
(I reported the users, not the extensions)
And I don’t know how many people Mozilla can spare for anti-spam measures, after the recent round of layoffs.
@hans_squared I can only be grateful for you also reporting.
And yes, I am partly frustrated by the time it can take for extensions to be removed. But I’m mostly frustrated when it doesn’t happen chronologically, because I don’t know if that maybe means the older - still present extensions - also was reviewed but found to be ok by the reviewer!?
Most of the latest mentioned extensions have now been removed from AMO. If it was because I wrote here again, or if it was because I have resubmitted reports on listed extensions, I don’t know?..
Strangely though, MetaVision Explorer from Jan 11 is still available on AMO. And a new Image Info Explorer was also posted yesterday. But definitely a step forward…
But really wish there was some more transparency on whats going on. Why are some extensions almost immediately deleted when reported, and others need a second (or more?) reporting or writing here? Do Mozilla forget to look at some of the reports, or are someone deciding it is not always relevant to delete the extensions I am reporting?
@Edward_Sullivan
Maybe it is because the extensions I report sometimes only have 0 downloads, and moderator is thinking how can I conclude what it is without installing or downloading the extension?
But it is pretty obvious when it is another clone. Somehow I was hoping not to write it publicly, but:
If you have detected a common pattern that exists for these copycats you can tie in a list of requirements that when detected to be changed/different than what expected you can do something about it. For example, if the extension is suppose to only run on a specific list of URLs, but the manifest reports permissions for everything -> now it knows the extension is a copy cat, you can do something about it, whether it is a warning to the user, or disabling/crippling the extension, etc.
Same thing can be done with the description and name, all of them are accessible from the manifest API so you can cross-match with a list of your own inside the script and if anything isn’t as it should, do something to the script.
Suggestion: whatever you do, do it after a couple of days after it was installed so they (the scammers copying your extension) can’t tell right away what is going on from a quick installation test, but long term users will eventually see/feel it.
The latest clone-extension I have found, has an “upgraded experience on AMO”.
Now with a custom icon and a long very “creative” description:
I’m proud of xIFr. I think I have made a great tool with that. But it has never been able to “edit metadata tags” or “compare metadata across multiple image files”.
And nor can an exact copy of xIFr.
I haven’t reported it yet. I guess I have to update my “standard reporting text”, and add lies to capabilities claimed in the description.
@Edward_Sullivan, any news on why a couple of earlier reported clones hasn’t been removed? Maybe especially the oldest, MetaVision Explorer uploaded Jan 11 by the account with the not very spam-like name “Instagram Reels Download - Snapinsta”? It has been reported twice (by me).
Sorry for my continuously postings here, but I want to keep focus on this very annoying problem.
The latest xIFr clone dropped the extra long description and custom icon from the previous one. We are back to standard “placeholder icon” and a short about-description. But experiments from the spammer hasn’t stopped…
The latest clone-extension is marked as compatible with Firefox for Android, and some user(?) has given it a 5-star review.
But the extension doesn’t even work in Firefox for Android. The extension requires the contextmenus/menus API to work, and that API ain’t even supported in the Android browser.
No worries about too much posting, the more detail the better. I am still awaiting feedback on this – I haven’t forgotten you!
Thanks to Ed and the reviewers for the latest clean-up.
All remaining xIFr-clones on AMO I had discovered to date has been removed today.
That means that a total of 43 xIFr-clones has been found and removed since middle of November!
I have been very insisting regarding the clones of my own xIFr extension. But hope progress also is made identifying and removing clones of other extensions.
I haven’t seen any new clones of xIFr since late March. There used to be posted at least one new clone every week.
I know Mozilla/AMO have made some initiatives to get rid of clones. But I thought they were more “reactive” than “proactive”. But maybe not? Looks very encouraging and promising so far ! 
How about you @hans_squared? While I have mostly been focused on my own xIFr, you have looked at the bigger picture. Any idea if clone-spamming has stopped in general, or is it only me who is lucky about xIFr?
I couldn’t find any new clone extensions in https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=updated&type=extension
But there’s a trivial extension called “YT Open in Muted Tab v223” with online gambling spam in the uploader’s profile.
Looks like it’s the same old spammer, he’s just changed tactics.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q="YT+Open+in+Muted+Tab"&t=lm&ia=web finds a few deleted extensions on AMO, so Mozilla is taking this seriously 
I hope it ok to add this to this old topic.
I am facing a similar issue with one of my addons: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tbl2csv
There seem to bee quite a few poorly made copy cats addons under different accounts and i was curious of something can be done here?
Links to the copy cats i found so far:
@igorlogius, if you don’t get any response from this, you might also tag Edward Sullivan from this thread. I had a lot of direct communication with him regarding the clones of xIFr, and Mozilla’s attempts to stop them.
Hey guys - sorry, I’ve seen this and am looking into it. Shoulda let y’all know that.
Thanks – Ed
@stig
Thank you for the info.
Edward was faster than me.
@Edward_Sullivan
Thanks for looking into this.
Hey there @igorlogius, just wanted to let you know I have not forgotten this. All the clones you identified have been added to our review queue.
Thank you for the heads up.
Looks like the clones have been taken down.
