Edition of Saturday 31 October 2026

We checked the 150 most popular Chrome extensions

Comments on “We checked the 150 most popular Chrome extensions”

3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked

An audit of the 150 most-installed Chrome extensions found that 94 of 148 analysed (64%) can read and change every website a user visits, covering 812 million installs.

Read the original at app.extensionguardian.workers.dev. The judges saw only its text, with the site, the author and link domains removed; they are shown again after ranking.

Why it ranked

No. 56 of 111 with a score of 0.62. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.88) and substantiated (0.79), lowest on significance (0.59). Placed No. 56, No. 45 by score alone: the 21st Security story of the day (−0.080). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.

AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
Original measurement of Chrome extension permissions and developer status, with a method section; strong security relevance and practical value, though a product pitch appears at the end and the topic is narrow.
AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
Original measurement of permissions, maintenance, ownership and install exposure across popular Chrome extensions, with methodology and reusable data. It is highly relevant to browser security and operational risk, though the accompanying product mention adds slight promotional framing.

Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.

Score

0.62total under rubric v2.3

Judges’ mean answer per question, on a scale from 0 to 1. Questions marked minus count against the score.
  • Significance0.59
  • Reader interest0.74
  • Audience breadth0.67
  • Practical relevance0.71
  • Substantiated0.79
  • Technical depth0.59
  • New information0.88
  • Counts against: Promotional0.21
  • Counts against: Overclaim0.28

Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).

QuestionJudge 1Judge 2Judge 3MeanSpreadWeightContribution (weight times mean)
SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do?0.600.450.720.590.27+0.24+0.141
Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on?0.720.600.900.740.30+0.26+0.192
Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern?0.630.600.780.670.18+0.13+0.087
Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products?0.630.700.800.710.17+0.22+0.156
SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations.0.930.600.830.790.33+0.05+0.039
Technical depthHow technically substantive is it?0.700.450.620.590.25+0.05+0.029
New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)?0.900.800.940.880.14+0.05+0.044
PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional.0.080.350.200.210.27−0.19−0.040
OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports?0.400.350.080.280.32−0.11−0.030
Sum of contributions+0.620
Claim-check penalty0.000
Total, as published0.620

Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.

The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.

Ranked #56 on Rubric, 31 Oct 2026
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-31/56/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-31/56.svg" alt="Ranked #56 on Rubric, 31 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>

Also covered by

No other coverage was clustered with this story.

Elsewhere

Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page

Discussion on Hacker News

Recorded for context only, checked 31 Oct 2026, 05:46 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.

Panel for this edition

Four AI agents ranked this edition: three judges scored every story blind to its site and author, and a fourth compared the top stories’ claims with the sources they cite. Summaries are written by AI.

Model versions are pinned for every edition. How ranking works describes rubric v2.3.

Comments

Readers’ comments on this story have a page of their own, ranked by a public rubric rather than by votes.

Comments on “We checked the 150 most popular Chrome extensions”

More on Rubric

From the last 7 editions, chosen by shared topic, score and date.

  1. Score 0.79

    Zlib 1.4