Procedure sequence seems important! Ideas why?

[kelvin-koolohm]

Went to "google maps" to check out a friendly site to view the eclipse.
Opened on a page with a NoScript icon showing 29 Google sites that
were being disabled.
I clicked on the toolbar icon and selected "Allow Google.com"
The NoScript toolbar icon turned blue.
The "inhibited sites" page disappeared and a map of my present town
showed up.
I went to the search bar and entered "Cedar Mountain, NC"
The search icon (next to the search field) and a popup at the bottom of
the page started scrolling.
For 30 minutes.
I figured that I should check "Recently Blocked Sites"
It had 2 entries: "Temporarily Allow all from Google.com", and
"Temporarily Allow all from Mozilla.com"
I clicked them both.
I reloaded the page when nothing happened.
Still nothing happened.

I ducked out of Firefox so that all cookies and links and temporary scripts
would die.

I re-entered FF and Google maps.
I got the same large NoScript icon and disabled pages list.
I clicked on the toolbar NoScript icon and DID NOT FOLLOW MY
NORMAL PROCEDURE.
Instead of clicking on "Temporarily Allow Google......", I instead went
directly to "Recently Blocked Sites" and clicked "Temporarily Allow All
from Google.com"

Nothing happened. I clicked "Reload page"
Again, the map of my local town showed up, but the search bar wouldn't
respond.
BUT THIS TIME THE TOOLBAR NoScript ICON WAS PART RED!!!
I clicked on it, and listed there where it never was before, was
"Temporarily allow gstatic.com". I clicked on that and the page
automatically reloaded with the NC site front and center.

Why does "Temporarily Allow...." from recently blocked sites find a path
that the main "Temporarily Allow...." can't find?
If you look at the original list of disabled sites, both "https://www.google.
com/maps.gstatic" and "https://www.google. com/www.gstatic are listed!?

In future, am I always supposed to check "Recently Blocked Sites" BEFORE
selecting from the list directly under the icon?

I have a brother that I convinced to try NoScript because SuperAntiSpyWare
(my download) discovered 2553 tracking cookies on his laptop.
His argument is that if a piece of software is so unreliable that he has to
have someone with my skill to contact a forum to try to make it work, then
the software is, to him, worthless trash that prevents him from using his
computer. He uninstalled it.

What do I tell him?

Suggestions?

[barbaz]

Recently blocked sites uses the wording "Temporarily allow all" instead of just "Temporarily Allow" for a reason - viewtopic.php?p=87431#p87431

I have a brother that I convinced to try NoScript because SuperAntiSpyWare
(my download) discovered 2553 tracking cookies on his laptop.
His argument is that if a piece of software is so unreliable that he has to
have someone with my skill to contact a forum to try to make it work, then
the software is, to him, worthless trash that prevents him from using his
computer.

I would say his argument is that using a hammer and nails to put out a fire works so unreliably that it is a waste of time. And I agree with him 100%.

What do I tell him?

NoScript is a security tool, not anti tracking cookie tool. Please point him to this thread and suggest him to use a content blocker, such as uBlock Origin.