Hi @dotproto or other Mozilla/AMO people
Frustrations are building up again
Any updates on eventual plans from Mozilla to stop the spam-extensions being posted on AMO? I hope not I’m going to need to continue reporting new extensions myself forever…
How are reports on add-ons handled by Mozilla? Are they processed chronologically?
I have reported 10 new clones this year and two of them has been removed. At least one of them very fast after the reporting. However it seems random which ones was removed, and the oldest (first reported) extension is still to be found on AMO.
Does that mean that (some of) the other reports have also been processed by admins, but conclusion was against removing the add-ons?
I make all the reports authenticated as myself (same account as used to update my own xIFr extension). So it seems relevant to give me some response if a report is rejected. But I have never received any response on the reports.
Would it be a good idea to report the older clone extensions on more time on AMO? Or should I try sending an email to AMO-admins again (I stopped that practice when it became possible to report authenticated on AMO)?
Whenever I report an extension on AMO, I mention all the other clone extensions too that haven’t been removed yet. But I don’t know if AMO-admins only will react on the exact extension report was posted on?
The following is how my reports look. I usually just copy this text and add the latest clone-extension to the list:
This, and other currently available extensions:
ImageMetaViewer - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Feb 17)
PhotoInspector - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Feb 12)
MetaView New - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Feb 8)
ImageMeta Analyzer Pro - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/xxxx/ (Feb 4)
MetaInsight Viewer - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Jan 30)
MetaTag Inspector - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Jan 22)
MetaVision Explorer - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Jan 11)
MetaMap Viewer Pro - https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/xxxx/ (Dec 30)
are all clones of my “xIFr” extension posted here on AMO. They follow in the footsteps of 27 other “clone extensions” you have deleted (thanks!) since middle of November…
MetaExplore Pro, PicData Viewer Pro, PicData Analyzer, ImageMeta Master, ImageData Explorer, PicInspector Plus, MetaView Pro, Image Metadata Master Pro, MetaLens Master, DataLens Pro Max, EXIF Inspector Pro, MetaLens Pro, Photo Metadata Viewer, EXIF Master Pro, EXIF Explorer Pro, Image Data Master, Photo Data Viewer Pro, Image Insight Pro Max, MetaView Max Pro, Imago Meta Detect, Meta Visio+, Imago Meta View, MetaXplorer, Pic Meta Detect, xMetaViewer, Image Insights+ and MetaViewr
I believe these extensions are all in violation of Mozilla Add-on policies, especially:
- if the add-on is a fork of another add-on, the name must clearly distinguish it from the original and provide a significant difference in functionality and/or code.
- Add-ons with the sole purpose of promoting, installing, loading or launching another website, application or add-on are not permitted.
The extensions all seems to be copied directly from my “xIFr” repository. To be exact, based on a snapshot shortly after I tagged version 2.12.0.
Someone published copies of my add-on on AMO
The following is a direct link to the snapshot in my repository. The “spam-extensions” is simply content of the WebExtension folder in this snapshot:
https://github.com/StigNygaard/xIFr/tree/c652833a7324391d9937771084d94f05ae5c9337
“SEO-link spamming” from the uploader-accounts, so far looks like being the primary purpose of these “clone extensions”. Usually you will find SEO spam-links on the uploader-accounts’ homepage-links, though I have noticed the link is sometimes not present immediately after upload of the extensions, but added a little later.
To my great discomfort, the extensions being direct copies of xIFr also means the manifest.json file plus the up/on-board pages and options-page of the extensions includes all the original references to me (as the author), my homepage (including my contact-info at https://www.rockland.dk/xIFr/ and the intro-page at https://www.rockland.dk/xIFr/start/) and my github repository (https://github.com/StigNygaard/xIFr). Also the extensions identify themselves as “xIFr version 2.12.0” both when and after installing. NOT by the name they have on AMO:
Someone published copies of my add-on on AMO
PS. I know xIFr is far from the only extension being copied and abused for spam like this right now. I know manpower for manual checks of all new extensions is not easy for Mozilla to get or prioritize. But maybe put a fee on every new extension being published? It can be a small symbolic fee, the important thing is there is some needed payment-step. I think that would stop the current systematized spamming?
I report as authenticated and check “It violates Add-on Policies” and “Both locations”.
Can I do any better?