> The one star nag review is accurate to me. As a potential user, I know not to buy the app. I despise ads and nag screens are in the same boat.

How do you know it's accurate, when you haven't used my app? That's actually not accurate. I don't have a nag screen.

▲

echoangle a day ago | parent [-]

> complaining that my app requested a rating… like the majority of other apps in the App Store!

But your paid for app does request a rating when using it? That’s what people call a nag screen

▲

lapcat a day ago | parent [-]

> But your paid for app does request a rating when using it?

Yes.

> That’s what people call a nag screen

No. Where do you get "screen from?

Ironically, there are some comments here that suggest I do the something that I'm in fact doing already:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49099655

> So put a "hey, a rating really helps" somewhere in the app that doesn't interrupt?

> The bottom of the dashboard. Top of settings. A banner that shows up after a while. Let me permanently say no; none of the passive-aggressive "maybe later" shit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49102435

> Well, not covering content helps.

People read the single word "nag" and assumed something much worse than the reality. If you define "nag" as any request for a review, regardless of the form in which it appears, then you could say that it nags, but as soon as you start talking about a nag screen, covering content, a modal dialog, etc., that's a totally inaccurate depiction of what my app does.

▲

echoangle a day ago | parent [-]

Do you seriously not see how this misunderstanding is coming about though?

If you write a blog post over a negative review accusing you of nagging, I would expect you to say “actually I’m not really nagging, I just have a line saying to please leave a rating in my app” if that’s the case. If you instead double down and make excuses and advocate to just ban the reviews because you don’t like user reviews anyways, it sounds like you’re actually wrong and the rating is correct.

And I’m not surprised that readers don’t proactively go out and look for your app to check themselves before criticizing you.

▲

lapcat 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you write a blog post over a negative review accusing you of nagging, I would expect you to say “actually I’m not really nagging

This is itself a misunderstanding of the blog post.

There's a whole setup where I talk about my other blog post from the previous day, Apple App Store curation, and the origin of the App Store from the iTunes Music Store. Why do you think I wrote all of that?

And then after I mention my review, I immediately move on to mention another developer's review, which was not about nagging.

If you think my blog post was about me responding to that one review, then you've missed most of the paragraphs in the blog post.

I'm critiquing the system, but people want to turn it into a simple personal complaint. That's missing the point. I've been consistently criticizing the App Store for years: https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2026/1/9.html Of course I have personal experience with the system, and bring that into my blog posts, but I'm speaking about common problems.

▲

tensor 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Honestly, reviews are pretty standard and straight forward. Advocating to silence voices you don't like is just shit. Sure, there will always be some people super angry and something or other, but every app developer is in the same boat. It's an even playing field.

In this case I agree with the system. I wouldn't want Apple start removing reviews based on arbitrary fuzzy feelings or logic.

	▲	lapcat 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Advocating to silence voices you don't like is just shit. > I wouldn't want Apple start removing reviews based on arbitrary fuzzy feelings or logic. That's not what I'm talking about. And actually, Apple already selectively censors App Store reviews. Did you know that Apple actually reviews and approves user reviews before they're published? I would abolish crowdsourced ratings and reviews entirely, not selectively.