←back to thread

324 points dvh | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.619s | source
Show context
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. luxuryballs ◴[] No.43304692[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?