Knowledge Base discussions

[In KB] Google Toolbar is not compatible with Firefox (was: How do I replace the Google toolbar features?)

  • 26 Replies
  • Last reply by AliceWyman
  • Locked
  1. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options
    Article: Google Toolbar is no longer compatible with Firefox - Here are some alternatives

    Lucy said

    Many of the toolbar's functions should be replaceable, maybe it's worth making an article about how to customize Firefox without google's help?

    I agree with Lucy as the Google toolbar is widespread and users might migrate to Google Chrome.

    Here are the features and their equivalents in Firefox:

    <blockquote>Article: [[Google Toolbar is not compatible with Firefox]]</blockquote> ''Lucy [[#post-40900|said]]'' <blockquote> Many of the toolbar's functions should be replaceable, maybe it's worth making an article about how to customize Firefox without google's help? </blockquote> I agree with Lucy as the Google toolbar is widespread and users might migrate to Google Chrome. Here are the features and their equivalents in Firefox: * Search with popular suggestions: [[Search bar]] that includes [[Search suggestions]] (built-in) * Access websites with a single click: [[Bookmarks Toolbar]], Library window or Bookmarks sidebar depending on the way they are displayed (built-in) * Contribute to any webpage with Sidewiki: No equivalent * View your Google Bookmarks from any computer: [[How to sync Firefox settings between computers]] using a [[What is Firefox Sync?|Firefox Sync account]] (built-in) * Check your spelling: [[Using the spell checker]] (built-in) * Translate websites into more than 40 languages: use a [https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/search/?q=translate&x=0&y=0&cat=all translation extension] * Complete forms with AutoFill: [[Form autocomplete]] (built-in) * Customize your Toolbar: [[How do I customize the toolbars?]] (built-in) * Save Toolbar settings to your Google Account: [[How to sync Firefox settings between computers]] using a [[What is Firefox Sync?|Firefox Sync account]] (built-in)

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  2. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6217 posts
    more options

    Lucy made the quoted comment here: /forums/contributors/707154?last=40904#post-40900 Google toolbar questions

    Related discussion: /forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090 [Rejected] Google Toolbar compatibility in Firefox 5

    Related blog post: http://googletoolbarhelp.blogspot.com/2011/07/update-on-google-toolbar-for-firefox.html ...which links to this Google Toolbar help article.

    For the record, here is the information Google is providing in their help article:

    Toolbar not available for Firefox 5 or newer versions

    Google Toolbar for Firefox is compatible with Firefox version 4 or older. To find out what version of Firefox you're using, click the Help menu and select "About Firefox" (on the Mac, the option is located in the "Firefox" menu). If you use Firefox version 5 or newer, you won't be able to use Google Toolbar. However, you can still add similar functionality to the browser by trying one or more of the following Firefox add-ons: The above list is provided only for your convenience. Google does not make any warranties or guarantees about any add-ons. Always be careful when installing add-ons as they may cause security, performance, or instability issues.
    Lucy made the quoted comment here: [/forums/contributors/707154?last=40904#post-40900] Google toolbar questions Related discussion: [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090] [Rejected] Google Toolbar compatibility in Firefox 5 Related blog post: http://googletoolbarhelp.blogspot.com/2011/07/update-on-google-toolbar-for-firefox.html ...which links to [http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?answer=1342452&topic=15356 this Google Toolbar help article]. For the record, here is the information Google is providing in their help article: <blockquote> '''Toolbar not available for Firefox 5 or newer versions''' <br><br> Google Toolbar for Firefox is compatible with Firefox version 4 or older. To find out what version of Firefox you're using, click the Help menu and select "About Firefox" (on the Mac, the option is located in the "Firefox" menu). If you use Firefox version 5 or newer, you won't be able to use Google Toolbar. However, you can still add similar functionality to the browser by trying one or more of the following Firefox add-ons: * '''AutoFill:''' See available [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?sort=updated&lver=5.0&q=fill+web+forms&y=0&x=0 add-ons to fill out forms]. * '''Page translation:''' See available [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?lver=5.0&q=language+translate&y=0&x=0&cat=all translation add-ons]. * '''Find in page:''' Use the built-in feature in Firefox by pressing Ctrl-F (in Windows and Linux) or Command-F (on Mac). * '''Spell-check:''' Use [http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker built-in spell-check] in Firefox. * '''Page sharing:''' Consider using other [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?lver=5.0&q=share+web+page&y=0&x=0&cat=1%2C71 add-ons for sharing]. * '''Site thumbnails on a new tab:''' Try out some of the other [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=tab+thumbnails&cat=all&x=0&y=0 add-ons for generating site thumbnails]. * '''Bookmarks:''' See available [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=bookmarks+sync&cat=all&x=0&y=0 bookmark add-ons]. To access your Google Bookmarks visit [http://www.google.com/bookmarks www.google.com/bookmarks]. * '''Gmail notifications:''' See available [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=gmail&cat=all&x=0&y=0 Gmail add-ons]. The above list is provided only for your convenience. Google does not make any warranties or guarantees about any add-ons. Always be careful when installing add-ons as they may cause security, performance, or instability issues.</blockquote>

    Modified by cor-el on

  3. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6217 posts
    more options

    If we do create a new article about replacing Google Toolbar features, either by using built-in Firefox features or by using other add-ons, it should be linked from the Search for alternatives section of Re-enable add-ons that were disabled when updating Firefox.

    If we do create a new article about replacing Google Toolbar features, either by using built-in Firefox features or by using other add-ons, it should be linked from the '''Search for alternatives''' section of [[Add-ons are disabled after updating Firefox]].

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  4. Chris Ilias
    Chris Ilias 2447 posts
    more options

    I think this and https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090 are duplicates, because they serve the same issue - Google Toolbar is disabled on the latest version of Firefox. Which incidentally is what I think the name of the article should be. :)

    I think this and https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090 are duplicates, because they serve the same issue - Google Toolbar is disabled on the latest version of Firefox. Which incidentally is what I think the name of the article should be. :)

    Modified by Chris Ilias on

  5. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    Chris_Ilias said

    I think this and https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090 are duplicates

    Yep, but the other one was rejected at purpose. Now the situation have changed because Google officially stopped its support. The Add-on Compatibility Reporter and the downgrading to Fx 3.6 were temporary workarounds, not sustainable solutions. So the only sustainable solution is now to search for alternatives. This section is not explicit enough in the case of the Google Toolbar so a dedicated article about alternative solutions is required. See also Alice's post above

    Google Toolbar is disabled on the latest version of Firefox. Which incidentally is what I think the name of the article should be.

    You're right because users want first their Google Toolbar works, they don't want alternatives. This title is more attractive.

    ''Chris_Ilias [[#post-40914|said]]'' <blockquote> I think this and https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707090 are duplicates </blockquote> Yep, but the other one was rejected at purpose. Now the situation have changed because Google officially stopped its support. The Add-on Compatibility Reporter and the downgrading to Fx 3.6 were temporary workarounds, not sustainable solutions. So the only sustainable solution is now to [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Add-ons%20are%20disabled%20after%20updating%20Firefox#w_search-for-alternatives search for alternatives]. This section is not explicit enough in the case of the Google Toolbar so a dedicated article about alternative solutions is required. See also [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707162?#post-40909 Alice's post] above <blockquote> Google Toolbar is disabled on the latest version of Firefox. Which incidentally is what I think the name of the article should be. </blockquote> You're right because users want first their Google Toolbar works, they don't want alternatives. This title is more attractive.
  6. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6217 posts
    more options

    I changed the title of the thread to reflect the new proposed article name, Google Toolbar is disabled on the latest version of Firefox. I'm assuming this will be a troubleshooting article, based on the name (new "How to" articles are normally in question format).

    Since it appears we agree that the article is needed I also changed the thread title to add "[Needs draft]"

    I changed the title of the thread to reflect the new proposed article name, [[Google Toolbar is disabled]] <del>on the latest version of Firefox</del>. I'm assuming this will be a troubleshooting article, based on the name (new "How to" articles are normally in question format). Since it appears we agree that the article is needed I also changed the thread title to add "[Needs draft]"

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  7. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    There is a meeting about to happen to discuss what to do, if anything, in 3.6.20 for people thinking that they will skip upgrading in order to keep Google Toolbar. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/3.6.20/Google_toolbar_options

    There is a meeting about to happen to discuss what to do, if anything, in 3.6.20 for people thinking that they will skip upgrading in order to keep Google Toolbar. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/3.6.20/Google_toolbar_options
  8. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Well that meeting wasn't conclusive. It seems like the best scenario would be to work with Google to disable the toolbar and migrate as much user data as we can (mostly bookmarks). This will take some time to figure out.

    I think we should go ahead with the article being discussed here. If they come up with an easier solution we can update our instructions.

    How about just "Google Toolbar is disabled" for a title? Or maybe "Google Toolbar is not supported"?

    Well that meeting wasn't conclusive. It seems like the best scenario would be to work with Google to disable the toolbar and migrate as much user data as we can (mostly bookmarks). This will take some time to figure out. I think we should go ahead with the article being discussed here. If they come up with an easier solution we can update our instructions. How about just "Google Toolbar is disabled" for a title? Or maybe "Google Toolbar is not supported"?
  9. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6217 posts
    more options

    I prefer "Google Toolbar is disabled" since I would imagine that's the problem that most people are looking to solve. The fact that users with Firefox 5 or above are unable to install the Google Toolbar or that users won't upgrade because they don't want to lose the Google Toolbar is probably less of a problem.

    "Google Toolbar is not compatible with Firefox" might be another name that covers both situations.

    I prefer "Google Toolbar is disabled" since I would imagine that's the problem that most people are looking to solve. The fact that users with Firefox 5 or above are unable to install the Google Toolbar or that users won't upgrade because they don't want to lose the Google Toolbar is probably less of a problem. "Google Toolbar is not compatible with Firefox" might be another name that covers both situations.

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  10. Stephanie Daugherty
    Stephanie Daugherty 26 posts
    more options

    slightly OT but If all else fails, eventually someone's likely to find a security or stability issue with google toolbar, given that it's EOL, so it seems like the longer it goes without updates, the more likely it is we'll have to settle the issue through blocklisting :/

    slightly OT but If all else fails, eventually someone's likely to find a security or stability issue with google toolbar, given that it's EOL, so it seems like the longer it goes without updates, the more likely it is we'll have to settle the issue through blocklisting :/
  11. the-edmeister
    the-edmeister 603 posts
    more options

    ^ That's a risk that users take when they force compatibility thru the ACR add-on or "bumping" the maxVersion, for any add-on.

    I wonder how Mozilla can track the security aspect? Plus, I wonder if any security experts would even track an add-on that Mozilla would automatically disable due to "compatibility", that users "force" to work?

    Now, if it starts causing a large number of crash reports, that is something Mozilla would see and could respond to by "blocklisting".

    ^ That's a risk that users take when they force compatibility thru the ACR add-on or "bumping" the maxVersion, for any add-on. I wonder how Mozilla can track the security aspect? Plus, I wonder if any security experts would even track an add-on that Mozilla would automatically disable due to "compatibility", that users "force" to work? Now, if it starts causing a large number of crash reports, that is something Mozilla would see and could respond to by "blocklisting".
  12. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    There are about 240,000 ACR daily users in Firefox 5.0 or 5.0.1, which is low according to 71M daily users of Firefox 5.0 & 5.0.1, i.e. 0.34% of users.

    In addition, there are no correlations with Google Toolbar in top 20 crashers and for other crashers, the max correlation rate is 6% (see https://crash-analysis.mozilla.com/crash_analysis/20110801/20110801_Firefox_5.0-interesting-addons-with-versions.txt.gz). So it won't be blocklisted.

    There are about [https://addons.mozilla.org/statistics/addon/15003 240,000 ACR daily users in Firefox 5.0 or 5.0.1], which is low according to [https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/daily?form_selection=by_version&p=Firefox&v%5B%5D=5.0&throttle%5B%5D=10.00&v%5B%5D=5.0.1&throttle%5B%5D=10.00&v%5B%5D=&throttle%5B%5D=10.00&v%5B%5D=&throttle%5B%5D=10.00&hang_type=any&os%5B%5D=Windows&os%5B%5D=Mac&os%5B%5D=Linux&date_start=2011-07-17&date_end=2011-07-31&submit=Generate 71M daily users of Firefox 5.0 & 5.0.1], i.e. 0.34% of users. In addition, there are no correlations with Google Toolbar in top 20 crashers and for other crashers, the max correlation rate is 6% (see https://crash-analysis.mozilla.com/crash_analysis/20110801/20110801_Firefox_5.0-interesting-addons-with-versions.txt.gz). So it won't be blocklisted.
  13. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Again slightly off topic but is there a black hole in ACR: all the crash reports with no signature?

    Could something like Google Toolbar eventually cause a large number of crashes that would not be noticed, other than if anyone monitored fluctuations in the number of no signature crash reports. (maybe someone does ? & maybe somehow action is being taken to reduce numbers of such reports?)

    Again slightly off topic but is there a black hole in ACR: all the crash reports with no signature? Could something like Google Toolbar eventually cause a large number of crashes that would not be noticed, other than if anyone monitored fluctuations in the number of no signature crash reports. (maybe someone does ? & maybe somehow action is being taken to reduce numbers of such reports?)
  14. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6217 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    Again slightly off topic but is there a black hole in ACR: all the crash reports with no signature? Could something like Google Toolbar eventually cause a large number of crashes that would not be noticed, other than if anyone monitored fluctuations in the number of no signature crash reports. (maybe someone does ? & maybe somehow action is being taken to reduce numbers of such reports?)

    soobidiver started a new thread on that here:
    /forums/contributors/707282 Crash fixing process in Beta builds

    ''John99 [[#post-41286|said]]'' <blockquote> Again slightly off topic but is there a black hole in ACR: all the crash reports with no signature? Could something like Google Toolbar eventually cause a large number of crashes that would not be noticed, other than if anyone monitored fluctuations in the number of no signature crash reports. (maybe someone does ? & maybe somehow action is being taken to reduce numbers of such reports?) </blockquote> soobidiver started a new thread on that here:<br> [/forums/contributors/707282] Crash fixing process in Beta builds
  15. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    Google toolbar is #73 search term.

    Someone does need to draft this article.

    Google toolbar is [/forums/contributors/707147?last=41594&page=3 #73 search term]. Someone does need to draft this article.
  16. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I know such suggestions potentially create work for L10n but would it be worth considering low quality quick response items as KB articles. It appears we are reviewing how articles are tracked written and reviewed and making changes.

    Even an incomplete article about something like this could be of use, no doubt there would be some way of allowing an article to be published so that it is visible to ordinary users, without triggering unnecessary L10n work.

    Maybe article could be made available even if initially they did not cover all versions of firefox, all OS, or had incomplete sets of screenshots/videos. Just getting something out as a response, rather than having to wait months for a fully approved polished comprehensive article may help end users, when they need they help. We could even invite users to add to the discussion section of the article if they find new information.

    The article could carry a banner saying something like
    "Initial partial draft
    - Quick response article
    - we are sorry this article is not yet complete, but some of the information may be of use and so it is published "as is" prior to full review and modification
    - you may be interested in the discussion section <link>"

    Other articles that could benefit from that sort of treatment would be, Mac LION OS and some of its features, Memory related changes.

    I know such suggestions potentially create work for L10n but would it be worth considering low quality quick response items as KB articles. It appears we are [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707464 reviewing] how articles are tracked written and reviewed and making changes. Even an incomplete article about something like this could be of use, no doubt there would be some way of allowing an article to be published so that it is visible to ordinary users, without triggering unnecessary L10n work. Maybe article could be made available even if initially they did not cover all versions of firefox, all OS, or had incomplete sets of screenshots/videos. Just getting something out as a response, rather than having to wait months for a fully approved polished comprehensive article may help end users, when they need they help. We could even invite users to add to the discussion section of the article if they find new information. The article could carry a banner saying something like <br/>"Initial partial draft <br/> - Quick response article <br/> - we are sorry this article is not yet complete, but some of the information may be of use and so it is published "as is" prior to full review and modification <br/> - you may be interested in the discussion section <link>" Other articles that could benefit from that sort of treatment would be, [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/707230?last=41934 Mac LION OS] and some of its features, [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/706489?last=40431 Memory] related changes.
  17. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    The L10n process doesn't block at all the creation, the update, or the review of KB articles. There are many KB articles updated and their L10n are not allowed because an admin haven't do that (see my complaint about that in this post)

    What is blocking is the interest of the SUMO team in reviewing (currently 12 revisions older than 6 days, but it has been better than before since Michelle approved a couple of articles, two weeks ago), updating and creating. Indeed, contributors that start updating articles stop updating them after some time when they see their revisions are not reviewed after several weeks. That's one of the cause of KB contributor shortage.

    The problem for this article is the someone. For several months, I haven't received the "Karma" points I was expecting, i.e. my revisions reviewed in a reasonable delay, so I won't be the someone for this article. The only other KB contributor that creates articles for desktop Firefox is Michael. So let's wait.

    The L10n process doesn't block at all the creation, the update, or the review of KB articles. There are many KB articles updated and their L10n are not allowed because an admin haven't do that (see my complaint about that in [/forums/contributors/707337#post-41469 this post]) What is blocking is the interest of the SUMO team in '''reviewing''' ([https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/contributors/unreviewed currently 12 revisions older than 6 days], but it has been better than before since Michelle approved a couple of articles, two weeks ago), updating and creating. Indeed, contributors that start updating articles stop updating them after some time when they see their revisions are not reviewed after several weeks. That's one of the cause of KB contributor shortage. The problem for this article is the someone. For several months, I haven't received the "Karma" points I was expecting, i.e. my revisions reviewed in a reasonable delay, so I won't be the someone for this article. The only other KB contributor that creates articles for desktop Firefox is Michael. So let's wait.
  18. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I was not suggesting L10n work does block such a proposal. I was trying to say my proposal could create unnecessary work for L10n . We need some way of getting items out to users faster. The current process of drafting, editing, reviewing and approving articles is not keeping up with the rapid updates cycle. There is a chance planed article may be ok, but articles to cover unexpected problems take too long.

    ( Release of Mac OS X LION and incompatibility was hardly unexpected we do not seem to be doing much to help Mac users with this)

    I was not suggesting L10n work does block such a proposal. I was trying to say my proposal could create unnecessary work for L10n . We need some way of getting items out to users faster. The current process of drafting, editing, reviewing and approving articles is not keeping up with the rapid updates cycle. There is a chance planed article may be ok, but articles to cover unexpected problems take too long. -------- ( Release of Mac OS X LION and incompatibility was hardly unexpected we do not seem to be doing much to help Mac users with this)
  19. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    John99 said

    The current process of drafting, editing, reviewing and approving articles is not keeping up with the rapid updates cycle.

    I repeat, the problem is not caused by the heavy manual process (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Article_Tracking#Proposed was updated soon after I posted this thread) but by missing human resources.

    ''John99 [[#post-41999|said]]'' <blockquote> The current process of drafting, editing, reviewing and approving articles is not keeping up with the rapid updates cycle. </blockquote> I repeat, the problem is not caused by the heavy manual process (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Article_Tracking#Proposed was updated soon after I posted this thread) but by missing human resources.
  20. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I repeat, the problem is not caused by the heavy manual process (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Article_Tracking#Proposed was updated soon after I posted this thread) but by missing human resources.

    That is because we aim for perfection, we need a faster response at least on some subjects.

    If we allow provisional versions not fully completed versions, we may get those temporary KB articles out quickly even with limited Human resources.

    I suspect if we we fail due to lack of Human resources, that may be because we are aiming for a polished version of a KB article, whereas we could release a provisional one containing at least some of the basic information.

    Examples saying developers are aware of the Mac OS problem, or that Google Toolbar is no longer supported by Google. Add the full information later, if and when developers catch up with new Mac OS features; and when someone has time to write about the workarounds to give Google Toolbar style features using alternative methods.

    You have a shortage of Humans able to write full articles complete with videos, and covering all OS, you probably have others able to at least start an article, at least get the basic information out quickly. Readers of that basic information may even contribute to the discussion and the editing of the new KB article. That increases your pool of Human contributors.

    ''I repeat, the problem is not caused by the heavy manual process (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Support/Article_Tracking#Proposed was updated soon after I posted this thread) but by missing human resources. '' That is because we aim for perfection, we need a faster response at least on some subjects. If we allow provisional versions not fully completed versions, we may get those temporary KB articles out quickly even with limited Human resources. I suspect if we we fail due to lack of Human resources, that may be because we are aiming for a polished version of a KB article, whereas we could release a provisional one containing at least some of the basic information. Examples saying developers are aware of the Mac OS problem, or that Google Toolbar is no longer supported by Google. Add the full information later, if and when developers catch up with new Mac OS features; and when someone has time to write about the workarounds to give Google Toolbar style features using alternative methods. You have a shortage of Humans able to write full articles complete with videos, and covering all OS, you probably have others able to at least start an article, at least get the basic information out quickly. Readers of that basic information may even contribute to the discussion and the editing of the new KB article. That increases your pool of Human contributors.
  1. 1
  2. 2