I like the way Mozilla handles their Add-ons site. They recommend a certain number for each category, put main recommendations on the "front page" for those categories under a very prominent search box, and then offer links to browse all add ons by popularity, rating, last updated, or all recommended.
e.g. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1/cat:5 Right now jQuery's plugin site offers browsing by category, name and date only. Honestly if search is prominent, browsing by name is irrelevant, and sorting by date is far less useful than sorting by popularity or rating. Having recommendations in each category would also be great, though that would take some regular human editorial. I think copying their model as much as possible would be a very good thing. On Jun 27, 5:12 am, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The idea of reviewing plugins and putting the good ones on a list is > even older then the plugin repository. And just reviewing for the sake > of reviewing isn't really practical. > > In the long term I hope to see more and more components finding their > way into jQuery UI, or subprojects of jQuery UI (like effects). > > Lets consider Josh's watermark > plugin:http://digitalbush.com/projects/watermark-input-plugin > It works well, but lacks certain features, ie. no support for password > fields. If you look at plugins.jquery.com for alternatives, you'll > find plenty. > In the long run, a jQuery UI Forms subproject could include the > watermark plugin, providing the quality and flexibility you can expect > from an official jQuery project. > > Apart from that, a reusable template, or just some documentation, for > creating plugin pages could help. In that respect, you're welcome to > improve and promote the plugin authoring > guide:http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Authoring > > Jörn > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 1:12 AM, donb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm finding what seems like a lot of plugins that: > > > a. Don't follow the structure of the 'home page, documentation, > > demonstration' pattern > > > b. Have dead links to the code/docs > > > c. Plugins that are marginally 'jqueryized' (for instance a Dynamic > > Drive component I came across with a minor reference to jquery but the > > bulk of it's code is run of the mill javascript. > > > d. Seem to be poorly described as to intent/purpose > > > e. Seem to be quickly-knocked-out and/or not well thought out, almost > > as if for the sake of just getting something published with their name > > on it. > > > Now I may just be overly critical, since I don't see any discussion on > > this. But as the plugin list has grown, it's getting more and more > > difficult to find quality information. > > > Well, there's my 2 cents... Fire away! > > > As a 'well what do you suggest be done about it?' starting point - > > perhaps a link to 'suggest improvement' that would email the developer > > or others, could be added? Or a simpler 'does not conform' link that > > simply marks the plugin project pages as needing cleanup. > > > Perhaps a way for the general community to directly work on the > > plugins documentation to cleanup the deficiencies? Tough, that one > > because most link off to someone's personal webspace, I know. > > > Anyway I hope this is taken in the spirit of 'making it better' and > > not idle griping. I fear jQuery may be getting smothered by it's very > > success.
