←back to thread

324 points dvh | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.797s | source | bottom
1. hicallmeal ◴[] No.43298598[source]
I said this in a reply comment, but it's likely Honey lost it due to mass reporting or _maybe_ (but unlikely) a manual decision, and now that time has passed, they've applied again (the badge "nomination" is just a form you fill in) after a short while and either the manual reviewer was unaware, or it just doesn't matter to the process, as the requirement are quite low.

It's possible larger extensions (1+ mil) have some sway/means to contact internally, but imo Google really doesn't pay much heed to "controversial"/topical things (perhaps apart from ublock). Or developers in general.

It becomes evident when you read some extensive related articles by Wladimir Palant (https://palant.info) [0] who does some pretty deep dives on the Chrome Store. I think he even developed Adblock Plus (the open-source version).

[0] I'm unaffiliated, just a reader.

replies(4): >>43298608 #>>43298718 #>>43298980 #>>43300611 #
2. hicallmeal ◴[] No.43298608[source]
Just to add - you'll find Firefox pays much closer attention (evident by their quick move to remove the badge, and keep it that way) to these sorts of things, and are much more responsive.
3. luxuryballs ◴[] No.43298718[source]
when you say the manual reviewer was unaware, I think I’m out of the loop on some key detail, unaware of what?
replies(1): >>43298768 #
4. hicallmeal ◴[] No.43298768[source]
The person reviewing Honey's badge nomination/request could have been unaware of the controversy Honey has been in. Thus upon finding Honey meets the "standards" they grant the request, and Honey is once again "featured".
replies(1): >>43304692 #
5. RataNova ◴[] No.43298980[source]
Kind of wild how little oversight there seems to be, considering how much power these extensions can have
replies(1): >>43299459 #
6. lukan ◴[] No.43299459[source]
Holding google a bit liable here, might do wonders.
7. ◴[] No.43300611[source]
8. luxuryballs ◴[] No.43304692{3}[source]
thanks, after reading a few more comments I picked up on this but not exactly sure the nature of the controversy, something related to affiliate content creators?