Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

>> Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy: An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users.

Any speculation on what the supposed multiple purposes would be?

From past experience, is that type of thing something that is automatically flagged / determined programmatically or does a human reviewer of an extension make the call?

View on HN

I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review.

Certainly google employees and the chrome team will be aware of this within an hour if they aren't already. You can bet it's intentional if we don't see a reversal in the next 3 days."

> I mean you would think their process would be smart enough to say "Hey, we just rejected upload for product X that is THE MOST POPULAR PLUGIN. We haven't rejected any of the prior versions. Maybe let's get a human review.

The extension in question only has 9,000 users.

As of January 2018, uBlock Origin has 10 million active users on Chrome. Where did you get 9,000?

From TFA.

That’s the number of followers on github for the source code of the project not actual end users ..you will have to go their chrome web store page to see this .

For the love of all that is holy can people please read the actual linked post we are talking about. It's only ~twice as long as this comment section and even just looking at the screenshot at the end would explain the situation.

The number of GitHub followers isn't even close to 9000, you just assumed that rather than bothering to look at the actual page.

That is strange, how does Google programmatically decide if a extension is multi-purpose? By looking into browser calls?

Even then the previous rc0 release got approved , this was a minor patch on top of that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com