These improvements are welcome. However, the biggest CWS process gap remains enforcement transparency and due process:
Violation notices should identify the exact behavior, affected version, policy basis, heuristics, and the required fix.
Account-wide suspensions should be proportionate; unrelated extensions should not be affected without separate findings.
“Malware” warnings should be used only for verified malware - not unrelated policy violations.
Account suspensions and consequential actions should receive expedited, independent human review.
Successful appeals should include meaningful restoration and correction of any inaccurate user-facing warnings.
Faster reviews are valuable, but fair and actionable policies along with efficient processes are even more important.
Greetings. It is certainly great that you are introducing new restrictions, but when will you start tackling the truly serious problems on a global scale?
Take, for example, the artificial inflation of extension users. Some developers are acquiring 10,000+ fake users and over 200 reviews in a remarkably short time, which automatically pushes their products into the recommendations. This completely breaks the traffic system for genuinely high-quality products.
I, for one, would love to see an internal paid promotion system for developers to help us somehow compete with the top extensions. I think many would agree with me.
Thanks.
Thanks for the update. Will private or unlisted extensions count towards the maximum number of extensions per publisher?
This is great, thanks for sharing this update. I've noticed that the review time isn't consistent either, for some reason. Sometimes reviews take 40 minutes, and other times (like right now, for me) it's been 2 days. Also, keep in mind that my app didn't change much, and the permissions were the same. Could there be a specific reason why the review time isn't consistent? This would help me set the right expectations with my users.