The chrome extension is being rejected by the review team

[Yavuzhan Çaşkurlu]

I wrote a chrome extension and I want to add it as closed beta (accessible to authorized people) to the chrome web store and fix it if there is a problem. However, my extension is rejected due to a 'red potassium' violation. The violation description also states "funcionality2, functionality3 in the extension description do not work or were not reproducible (this word can also be "renewable" or "repeatable". Since the Dashboard is in my native language, I couldn't quite understand what the actual text was. I couldn't find a way to see the original text.) in our review." Not all functionality is included here. For this reason, I deduce that some of functionalities are working correctly. However, in my own testing, all functionality works correctly, so I'm shifting my focus to the statement "in our review, it wasn't reproducible"(again, this word might be "repeatable" or "renewable") in the violation description. I've done research on this statement, but I couldn't find any useful information. There is no information about this in the documentation about the violations in the Webstore. What does this expression mean? What could be the cause of the problem? How does the Chrome review team go about reviewing? Or how can I test these issues?

[IC]

I hate how google manages store now... I sell extensions since 2017. And now on Sunday I am getting this email. No info, no questions, just suspended. All of them were 4.9+ rating, with all satisfied customers. No words.

Hi there,

Your developer account has been suspended from the Chrome Web Store.

The Chrome Web Store seeks to provide the best user experience, and as such we uphold strict compliance of our Developer Terms of Service and Program Policies.

If you think that this has been applied in error, you may use this Support Page to get in touch with us.

Regards,

Chrome Web Store Developer Support

[hrg...@gmail.com]

Go to the following page and search the term "Red Potassium".

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/troubleshooting/

You'll find all the details of what that violation means.

It seems that your extension's description mentions funcionality2 and functionality3, but the person who reviewed your extension could not verify that it actually provides said functionality.

[Yavuzhan Çaşkurlu]

As I said, the functions work quite normally. Although the explanation about red potassium seems to be sufficient, as I mentioned in the article, there is no information about the term "renewable or repeatable or reproducible ..." and I actually asked this. However, the support team came back and they said that there is no problem with the functionality. Thanks for your comment anyway.

5 Eylül 2021 Pazar tarihinde saat 21:47:42 UTC+3 itibarıyla hrg...@gmail.com şunları yazdı:

[Amy Dev]

With 'red potassium' I would make a video explaining and clearly demonstrating how the features are actually working and how it fulfills the single purpose. This solution worked for me. 

Amy 

[Yavuzhan Çaşkurlu]

I already added a video as an extension promotional video, but I was rejected anyway. After their response, I added a section to the description stating a few parts that appear in screenshots but don't yet work in my extension (I've never said they work and never show how to use them anywhere, but I still think they're right). As a result, after this arrangement, the extension has been accepted as of today :) Thank you for your interest.

6 Eylül 2021 Pazartesi tarihinde saat 19:56:28 UTC+3 itibarıyla Amy Dev şunları yazdı:

[Victor Tran]

Hey Amy/yavuzhan,

I was wondering if you remember when you sent a video of your app to the Google team, did you just sent it to the chromewebstor...@google.com support email or was there another way you can include the video when you are submitting a new draft for review? I am running into the red potassium violation as well for my extension that has always been stable in the market and trying to see if there's a way a way to clear the violation before submitting another draft for review. 

Victor