3 ms·

> Wow, this scares me a lot. So if you upload an update to an existing extension that has many users, if a human reviewer arbitrarily decides to reject the upda

> Wow, this scares me a lot. So if you upload an update to an existing extension that has many users, if a human reviewer arbitrarily decides to reject the update, the entire extension is removed from the store? Or just the recent update? I've had an extension in the Chrome Web Store for 5 years and it's been unilaterally un-published with no warning at least 3 times. This is an extension that has many thousands of active installs, is free with no ads, and has specific simple functionality (defines a new tab page) and no access to browsing history or other permissions. It's the absolute best case. 2 of the 3 times, no reason was given. The exact same version was later re-published, after far too many emails. The 3rd time, a debatable reason was given - though again, the same version had been up for many years and was serving thousands of users. Each time the extension gets un-published, it starts a days- or weeks-long ticket thread with Google's painfully automated review process. There's not a Google employee who simply explains what they did and why (and why no warning was given). Google just chooses from a set of email templates. If you're lucky and/or keep emailing over and over, they'll add 10 words about what was done. I've had an IRS audit and, having experienced both, the IRS audit was easier, more predictable/logical, and more enjoyable than any of the 3 attempts to get my extension re-published. (If anyone from the Chrome Web Store team wants help improving the publishing and review process, feel free to contact me. It's so broken that I can't imagine Google needs more input, but I'm willing.)

seanwilson 7y ago
Which extension? Did you ever get a hint of or suspect what the reasons might have been?
AJ007 7y ago
None of this is surprising or remotely new for Google. As someone who has dealt with Google’s moderation process from other products, it’s basically the same shit as it was 15 years ago. This isn’t a Google Chrome Webstore specific issue, this is a universal Google issue. I imagine the sloppy processes were the result of keeping things automated early in Google’s life and as they grew, to obfuscate spammers. Then, as Google got bigger over the past decade and morphed into a dis-functional bureaucracy, any hope of improving those processes was lost. Smaller companies can get away with these sorts of things, but once you are under the lens of politicians and anti-trust regulators, it starts to cause a material impact on the business. The price is going to be paid eventually, by Google’s stockholders. In the short term this specific uBlock Origin issue may look good for Google. Less ad blocking users for Chrome means higher revenue per install. Many of the bad decisions the Chrome team made were probably strongly supported by user cohorts and revenue data (like forcing Google logins on Chrome if you logged in to Gmail.) That might be enough for some of Google’s executives and middle managers to earn self directed bonus stock options. In the long term, we all know what happens when the early adapters move on to other products.

seanwilson 7y ago

Which extension? Did you ever get a hint of or suspect what the reasons might have been?

AJ007 7y ago

None of this is surprising or remotely new for Google. As someone who has dealt with Google’s moderation process from other products, it’s basically the same shit as it was 15 years ago. This isn’t a Google Chrome Webstore specific issue, this is a universal Google issue. I imagine the sloppy processes were the result of keeping things automated early in Google’s life and as they grew, to obfuscate spammers. Then, as Google got bigger over the past decade and morphed into a dis-functional bureaucracy, any hope of improving those processes was lost. Smaller companies can get away with these sorts of things, but once you are under the lens of politicians and anti-trust regulators, it starts to cause a material impact on the business. The price is going to be paid eventually, by Google’s stockholders. In the short term this specific uBlock Origin issue may look good for Google. Less ad blocking users for Chrome means higher revenue per install. Many of the bad decisions the Chrome team made were probably strongly supported by user cohorts and revenue data (like forcing Google logins on Chrome if you logged in to Gmail.) That might be enough for some of Google’s executives and middle managers to earn self directed bonus stock options. In the long term, we all know what happens when the early adapters move on to other products.