11–20 of 119 posts
>"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it."
Which maybe true, but odd as the project is publicly hosted freeware. It could be a case of simply an automatic algorithm making an incorrect call.
Its also worth considering Google's primary revenue stream is advertisement, which uBlock attempts to subvert to a degree.
Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.
However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin".
In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result.
Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing special in 1.3.2 compared to any other releases, and from the look of it I won't ever be able to fix whatever is deemed wrong without specifics, and as a consequence, no updates lead to abandonware.
Edit: I will add that with Firefox and Opera, there has always been communication with specifics when I was asked to fix something, and I always did fix as demanded (or suggested).
In addition to UBlock Origin, I block DOM, HTTP/S referrer, CSS visited links (surfing history viewable by websites), block WebRTC (leaks private IP address schemas), and more. I have a right to a clutter-free Internet that is not tracking me, using my bandwidth without my consent, and doing everything to make money from me without my consent or sharing with me should it do so. No, thank you. I will continue to block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, you name it. I somewhat enjoy the cold war between users and the ad companies.
Apps that do controversial things with respect to Apple or Google seem to get rejected for seemingly random technical reasons a lot. What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!
This is regarding the chrome web store, not the play store. Also, I'm aware of Apple taking a pretty heavy handed approach, but I'm not convinced Google has a history of this.
> What does it even mean for code in a packaged program to be "visible"? It should be invisible! That's the whole point of packaging!
Perhaps you are assuming this is the play store instead of the chrome web store? Web store apps are just web pages. They want to ensure the packages are easy to inspect and understand. It's a rule that appears to be attempting to maintain open web standards. Given that this is HN, I assume that's enough of a justification for anyone reading this comment.
The core reasons appears: >"Where possible, make as much of your code visible in the package as you can. If some of your app's logic is hidden and it appears to be suspicious, we may remove it." Which maybe true, but odd as the project is publicly hosted freeware. It could be a case of simply an automatic algorithm making an incorrect call. Its also worth considering Google's primary revenue stream is advertisement,…
Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.
Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…
Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.
Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.
Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…
Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.
Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…
Have you tried telling them that?
Failing that -- if it were me -- I'd resubmit perhaps with the only addition of a README that briefly explains the file layout.