process for appealing extension removal?
166 views
Skip to first unread message
Hans
Sep 1, 2014, 1:09:11 PM9/1/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
I have a 5-star extension with ~260,000 users that's been on the Web Store for over 4 years that recently got taken down.
The reason given was vague, but I corrected what I though the problem might be and re-submitted. A response came back giving a different reason for removal, again NOT citing the specific portion of the listing/software that was the problem. A third attempt at correction and re-submission had a similar outcome. My extension is straight-up HTML/CSS/JS. It requests a single permission: Access tabs and browsing activity.
My question is this: is there a formalized process for engaging in a dialog with someone on the Google Chrome Web Store team to help resolve the specific portions of an app/extension's listing/code that have been deemed to violate Web Store policy? Replies directly to the takedown email have yielded no response.
I applaud Google for taking security seriously by scrutinizing app/extensions, but there seems to be no clear process for devs with sincere intentions to resolve claims of policy violation.
Is there someone in this forum from Google that can address this?
Thanks,
Hans
Omnray
Sep 8, 2014, 6:33:22 PM9/8/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
The whole story and the fact that such things can EASILY happen with the most regarded and well known chrome extension - Session Buddy is just unbelievable.
I have no words.
It's just a mess, without any meaningful way to appeal, without any way to communicate what's going on to the users.
I really intrested what was the problem!!! ???
With Session Buddy!!!!!
What was the reasons to remove it from CWS in such a harsh way? As if this is some trojan and virus.
I am really concerned about the extreme harsh way how we are treated by this Google subdivision.
Tons of request about pending reviews, no any visible communication.
We are all people there!!!! Real alive people!!! And behind every work is not only the author - many users is also depending on them. Is really there is so much problems with extension that have more than several thousands users that you have no time to send a email first and give a few weeks for a response and update? Do really authors need to wait weeks in a smashed down state for a manual review only to obtain in response next minor cavil?
PS What was the problem with Session Buddy? What Web Store policy it might violate? I cannot actually imagine anything that such an absolutely legit extension as Session Buddy might violate, really wondering. Tons of junk that declare all possible access rights and really spy on users and place advertising all around the pages but the Session Buddy somehow violate some policy - something really wrong with such policies....
I have no words.
It's just a mess, without any meaningful way to appeal, without any way to communicate what's going on to the users.
I really intrested what was the problem!!! ???
With Session Buddy!!!!!
What was the reasons to remove it from CWS in such a harsh way? As if this is some trojan and virus.
All this situation and the atmosphere there is just a mess!
The new rules and wishes the CWS team invent continuously is just ridiculous. ANY WORK CAN BE BRINGED DOWN - for example even the Evernote Sniper extension can be bringed down, according to current rules - they use in page panels for example. It's just a barrier for innovations and experiments!
The new rules and wishes the CWS team invent continuously is just ridiculous. ANY WORK CAN BE BRINGED DOWN - for example even the Evernote Sniper extension can be bringed down, according to current rules - they use in page panels for example. It's just a barrier for innovations and experiments!
I am really concerned about the extreme harsh way how we are treated by this Google subdivision.
Tons of request about pending reviews, no any visible communication.
No any warning, no explanation, no any obvious or clear way to appeal !!!
It just NOT HUMAN!!! Hey guys - it's always a people behind the work, a months or years of their work! Does the extensions with hundreds of thousands of users or even just hundreds must be in the pending reviews for weeks? (For example i remember that ANTP plugin, which also have hundred of thousands of users, was also smashed down because of some minor and quickly resolvable reason)
Is it really so hard to install some issue tracker and before bringing down someone work for a ridiculous reason, like a wrong word in description, first notify the author, and only if there will be no response or progress go to other actions?
We are all people there!!!! Real alive people!!! And behind every work is not only the author - many users is also depending on them. Is really there is so much problems with extension that have more than several thousands users that you have no time to send a email first and give a few weeks for a response and update? Do really authors need to wait weeks in a smashed down state for a manual review only to obtain in response next minor cavil?
PS What was the problem with Session Buddy? What Web Store policy it might violate? I cannot actually imagine anything that such an absolutely legit extension as Session Buddy might violate, really wondering. Tons of junk that declare all possible access rights and really spy on users and place advertising all around the pages but the Session Buddy somehow violate some policy - something really wrong with such policies....
Shawn Kanyer
Sep 9, 2014, 11:16:39 AM9/9/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
If it was a copyright violation you can fight it here:
Hans
Sep 10, 2014, 1:20:17 PM9/10/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
The issue was resolved within a matter of a few days. Since no details were given in the original correspondence, three re-submissions were required to identify the root causes. On the plus side, the response to each submission came back within 1-2 days.
I suspect that the initial takedown was prompted by an automated review process. The reason given was "use of irrelevant, misleading, or excessive keywords in app descriptions, titles, or metadata". This was resolved by taking out a line of text from the extension's web store listing description: "Tags: Session Management, Session Manager". It's not clear whether this constitutes "excessive keywords", so the only way for me to discover that this was the root cause of the original takedown was to re-submit and wait for a response. This initial flag for review led to additional scrutiny by a CWS rep who felt that some elements of the extension looked "suspicious". I made a few changes to improve transparency and re-submitted, and the response was that the problematic portion of the extension had not yet been remedied. Again no details were given so I was left guessing (as with the first notice, I responded to the rejection email from CWS with an appeal for details but received no answers to these questions). After the third submission, the extension was exonerated and its listing restored, much to my relief. The last thing I changed was to remove a couple of libraries that my extension was loosely making use of: log4JavaScript and mootools. I originally suspected that the objection may have been attributable to the fact that I was shipping the minified versions of these libs, but I have subsequently learned that minification alone does not lead to a suspicion of malicious intent and is not explicitly prohibited by CWS. I also learned that there is an automated rating system that assesses apps/extensions for "degree of suspicion" based on a combination of indicators. It was hinted that one such factor that may have contributed to pushing my extension into the realm of manual review was that the extension requests clipboardWrite permission (which it makes use of to facilitate user data export at the will of the user).
I suspect that the initial takedown was prompted by an automated review process. The reason given was "use of irrelevant, misleading, or excessive keywords in app descriptions, titles, or metadata". This was resolved by taking out a line of text from the extension's web store listing description: "Tags: Session Management, Session Manager". It's not clear whether this constitutes "excessive keywords", so the only way for me to discover that this was the root cause of the original takedown was to re-submit and wait for a response. This initial flag for review led to additional scrutiny by a CWS rep who felt that some elements of the extension looked "suspicious". I made a few changes to improve transparency and re-submitted, and the response was that the problematic portion of the extension had not yet been remedied. Again no details were given so I was left guessing (as with the first notice, I responded to the rejection email from CWS with an appeal for details but received no answers to these questions). After the third submission, the extension was exonerated and its listing restored, much to my relief. The last thing I changed was to remove a couple of libraries that my extension was loosely making use of: log4JavaScript and mootools. I originally suspected that the objection may have been attributable to the fact that I was shipping the minified versions of these libs, but I have subsequently learned that minification alone does not lead to a suspicion of malicious intent and is not explicitly prohibited by CWS. I also learned that there is an automated rating system that assesses apps/extensions for "degree of suspicion" based on a combination of indicators. It was hinted that one such factor that may have contributed to pushing my extension into the realm of manual review was that the extension requests clipboardWrite permission (which it makes use of to facilitate user data export at the will of the user).
App/extension security is important no doubt, but the review/resolution process currently seems a bit broken and I'm hopeful that the CWS team is listening to devs and looking for ways to improve communication and engender mutual trust between devs and the CWS.
Hans
Omnray
Sep 11, 2014, 8:37:55 PM9/11/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
Thanks for a detailed description of this your experience
it was all very interesting
Of course it will be much better if somebody from CWS team provide to you, and as result to a whole community here, some more information what was the real problem, why all of this happen, what's really help and what other options might also help.
Having a best known Session Manager in the CWS it's really feels stupid being banned because of the very appropriate search keys in description, which actually help users to find it.
And trying go through review by guessing, and removing in process libraries!!!!! like log4JavaScript and mootools... and then thinking that maybe you being punished just because of the releasing new features, that happens to use a new completely legitimate API, "just in case", well it's all very messy.
All of this really sad, as really, just few words from whom press the ban button might make the experience so much... humane. If even the developer of one of the most regarded application cannot count on even the basic touch of civility in communication, from CWS team, what to expect for everyone else....
it was all very interesting
Of course it will be much better if somebody from CWS team provide to you, and as result to a whole community here, some more information what was the real problem, why all of this happen, what's really help and what other options might also help.
Having a best known Session Manager in the CWS it's really feels stupid being banned because of the very appropriate search keys in description, which actually help users to find it.
And trying go through review by guessing, and removing in process libraries!!!!! like log4JavaScript and mootools... and then thinking that maybe you being punished just because of the releasing new features, that happens to use a new completely legitimate API, "just in case", well it's all very messy.
All of this really sad, as really, just few words from whom press the ban button might make the experience so much... humane. If even the developer of one of the most regarded application cannot count on even the basic touch of civility in communication, from CWS team, what to expect for everyone else....
Omnray
Sep 11, 2014, 9:15:00 PM9/11/14
to chromium-...@chromium.org
Just open my G+ after a long time, and guess what i find.
I am subscribed on ANTP G+. ANTP - also very well known tool become blocked again in CWS for some reason.
Last time i remember that was because some real nuance with promotional banners, instead of disabling just them CWS team block the whole extension for month (or more), despite the fact that all banners is goes through screening process before publish.
I think it very worth to copy there some response from ANTP author to the users that asking what's going on:
>>>>
It will be back up; however, I can't control how long that takes.
I am subscribed on ANTP G+. ANTP - also very well known tool become blocked again in CWS for some reason.
Last time i remember that was because some real nuance with promotional banners, instead of disabling just them CWS team block the whole extension for month (or more), despite the fact that all banners is goes through screening process before publish.
I think it very worth to copy there some response from ANTP author to the users that asking what's going on:
>>>>
+Shon LV: It will be back up when the Chrome Web Store team approves the latest update. It is out of my control, which is one of the reasons why+Awesome HQ is my primary focus now for my development time, not Awesome New Tab Page... The Chrome Web Store is increasingly becoming a walled garden with poor communication with developers, detrimental and monopolistic policies, and huge delays (such as this one resulting in the extension being unavailable for so long).
I apologize for the inconvenience, but I have done all I can do. The only option is to either wait or to use Awesome HQ, which is gaining more and more features from Awesome New Tab Page over time.
It will be back up; however, I can't control how long that takes.
>>>>
On Monday, September 1, 2014 8:09:11 PM UTC+3, Hans wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages