> it was rejected. They attached a nsfw screenshot of some unidentified app.

I don’t doubt the author, at the same time this is a serious accusation with no details and little context.

This could have been presented in a more organized way, with timelines and redacted content.

Part of the problem is Google not being transparent, having more transparency could help.

Anybody who's ever tried to get through their review process can attest that the article writer's experience is far from outside the norm.

Although I must admit I've never gotten nudes from them. Up your game, Google.

▲

ajross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Anybody who's ever tried to get through their review process can attest that the article writer's experience is far from outside the norm.

This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. "Everybody Knows" this kind of thing is true, ergo you should believe the example here without evidence.

It's also kinda ridiculous in context. I mean, no, there are no cases in the literature where Google has rejected an app due to misidentification with NFSW content and then sent screenshots of said content as part of the review. Even not in combination I don't think. Like, has either situation every been documented on its own? "Far from outside the norm" indeed.

	▲	handoflixue an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. "Everybody Knows" this kind of thing is true, ergo you should believe the example here without evidence. A much more charitable reading would be something like: Numerous people have all made this complaint, therefore the broader point is probably solid, even if this particular example might not be iron-clad evidence on it's own. I've certainly heard enough similar stories that I don't have much trouble doubting this one, although I'd hardly consider any one story super-convincing on it's own
	▲	fooqux 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. "Everybody Knows" this kind of thing is true, ergo you should believe the example here without evidence. Fair. > It's also kinda ridiculous in context. I mean, no, there are no cases in the literature where Google... Ok you lost me. What is "the literature"? Published scientific studies about Google's app review process? Obviously there aren't any of those. Blog posts? You (presumably) just read one, and if you take a minute to search, you'll find tons more. News articles? Perhaps harder to find, but definitely exist. The whole nudes thing is just a funny outlier; don't fixate on that. Who cares what randomly chosen reason the Google overmind decided it didn't like you. The point is it feels like a dice roll and you have no recourse when you suddenly and randomly fail it.

▲

hbn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this supposed to be some hypocrisy gotcha? It's a guy's personal blog

He's jotting down his thoughts, not trying to be a review process to distribute software on the most used operating system on the planet

▲

Fabricio20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You know, personal anecdotes and all that, but a company I used to work with was applying for their b2b app as well and we got a denied with a screenshot of a completely unrelated app as well, and that was at least 5 years ago. We ended up just replying "That's not our app" and I think it got stuck in limbo after that as I don't recall hearing anything about it afterwards and then I left the company.

▲

junon 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They don't have access to the content anymore, as mentioned a bit later in the article.