An image downloader needs to see the pages you visit, which makes it one of the more trusted things you can add to a browser. Most of them are fine. Some change after you install them. I make one of these extensions, so I wanted to know what actually goes wrong for people, and I read the complaints.
I collected every review posted on the Chrome Web Store between 30 October 2025 and 30 October 2026 for 12 image downloader and "save image as type" listings, in ten interface languages. That came to 2,631 reviews, 271 of them rated 1 to 3 stars, all with text. I sorted those 271 by hand. One review can land in two groups, and the counts are my own coding, so read them as rough.
| Complaint | Low reviews (about) |
|---|---|
| Stopped working, or got worse, after an update | 65 |
| A free tool started asking for money, with the limit not stated up front | 64 |
| Hidden behaviour: injected buttons or toolbars, tabs opening on their own, affiliate redirects, antivirus alerts | 31 |
| Missed images, or needed reopening several times | 24 |
| Folder and file name bugs | 20 |
| No save dialog on right-click, or it forgot the folder | 9 |
| Begging for ratings, forced notifications, ads | 6 |
| Animated GIFs saved as a still frame | 5 |
The first two groups are half of all the low ratings. Hidden behaviour is smaller but it is the group that grew this year, and it is the one that matters for safety. Two cases stood out. Reviewers of one "save image as type" replacement reported that it opened a Google Trends tab every time the browser started, and that its terms of use allowed "background functions" for the company's own search marketing. 17 of that listing's 23 low reviews in the period say so, and several call it malware. Reviewers of a batch downloader reported a magnifier button added to every site they visited, which uploaded the picture to a Chinese shopping search, and one said the button stayed after the extension was switched off.
I am not naming those listings here. These are user reports, not findings of my own, and the point of this page is the checks, which work on any extension.
When you click "Add to Chrome" (or "Get" in Edge), the browser shows a short list of what the extension will be able to do. Read it before you confirm. The line to stop at is Read and change all your data on all websites. It means the extension can see and edit every page you open, including your webmail and bank, from the moment it is installed. A bulk image downloader does need to read pages, but it only needs to read the one you are on when you click it. Chrome has a permission for that, called activeTab, and it shows no scary warning at install.
So the question is when the access starts. An extension that asks for all sites at install is ready to act on every page at all times. One that asks later, at the moment you use a feature that needs it, at least gives you a prompt you can refuse.
The listing shows when the extension was last updated. A date years old means nobody is fixing it when sites change, which is how most of the "stopped working" reviews start. One reviewer put it well: "always look at the last updated date". A very recent update is not bad in itself, but it is the moment to check the reviews.
Sort the reviews by newest, or just scroll, and read the 1 and 2 star ones from the last few months. Old praise says little about the current version. You are looking for a sudden cluster: several people in the same month saying it now opens a tab, shows ads, asks for money, or was flagged by antivirus. That cluster usually shows up weeks before anything else changes.
The surprise paywall was the most common reason for anger in one listing alone, about 62 of its low reviews. A typical one: "Asking for payment after just 5 uses, without even making it clear that it will require payment". Paying for software is normal, and those reviewers mostly objected to not being told. Before installing, search the description for "free", "Pro", "premium" or a price. A listing that says what the free version does and what it costs to remove the limit is telling you the deal. If the description never mentions money but the store marks it as offering in-app purchases, expect a limit you have not been told about.
Chrome Web Store listings have a privacy section where the developer declares what data the extension collects. Check that it fits the tool. An image downloader has an obvious reason to handle the page you scan, and little reason to collect your browsing history or personal details.
Most of the trouble in these reviews arrived with an update, after people had used the extension happily for a while. These are the signs reviewers noticed:
Type chrome://extensions in the address bar (in Edge, edge://extensions). Every installed extension is there, including ones you forgot about.
You can also report an extension from its store listing. Do it with specifics: what appeared, on which site, and since when.
I built PixLasso (also on Edge), so judge it by the same list. Its manifest has no content script and no host permission at install: it reads a page only when you click the icon, through activeTab. Access to websites is an optional permission, requested the first time you make a ZIP, convert formats or scan all tabs. Outside of what you click in its popup, it opens three tabs: a welcome page right after install, a permission page the first time you right-click "Save image as JPG / PNG", and a short page on pixlasso.com when you remove it. Nothing opens at browser start. It has no ads or analytics, and it asks for a rating once, ever. The free version saves 30 files per batch with no daily limit, and right-click conversion is free. Pro removes the limit for a single payment of US$9.99, the launch price until 31 December 2026, then US$14.99. Like every extension in those reviews, it can break when a site changes; if it does, email [email protected] with the page link.
Updated November 2026. Written by the developer of PixLasso, who mentions the extension where it helps, alongside free methods. Review counts come from the developer's own reading of Chrome Web Store reviews; Edge reviews were not included.