|
Hey! Guys I need your help!
Last week my app was deleted from Play Store, the claim was that it violates spam policy with repetetive content. I tried to get in touch with console, but they said that the app is banned from store again with claim of repetitive content. They did not explain where in my app the policy was violated, leaving me wondering, what just happened and what was wrong with my app. Can you guys please could maybe explain what could be wrong with the app, so that maybe hypothetically I could understand the ban.
This actually left me wondered that basically Google can do anything without any explanation, just say that the policy have been violated and point- ban from the store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to look at what your app is actually doing. It's unlikely that people here can guess why it is being rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh sorry! It was bitcoin trading simulator for beginner investors, It was like school where people can learn to trade with real time trading simulator with no risk. It was basically an app that was based on our online platform-
Bitcoin trading game
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, when they have a problem with an app they usually explain quite well and provide links to their policy documents. Are you sure you didn't see those?
Repetitive content is a fancy word for spam.
Edit: An and if you have multiple apps on the store, make sure they are not the same content under a different app name. That is a violation.
Edit: I forgot, I heard about rare extreme cases they take down apps with excessive keyword spamming in the app description. You may review your app texts in the app store developer console.
throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
They just reffered to their spam policy without any specific explanation, but the thing was that we were only one on the app store that provided something like this. Plus we send a second letter that we would like to hear detailed explanation, what was wrong but they just said that they already explained everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Codesavage wrote: This actually left me wondered that basically Google can do anything without any explanation, just say that the policy have been violated and point- ban from the store.
It's their platform. Why are you not wondering the same over your own applications? What God-given right do users have with their apps, or are they depending on your good mood?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL...
:s/Google Play/Apple Store
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
You unmitigated cad!
Bounder!
Gibface hedge-creeper, malmsey nosed vazey!
VI!
I thought I'd forgotten that execrable heap of junk, but no - you had to drag it back!.
Still at least it wasn't
:%s/Google Play/Apple Store/
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
modified 5-Jun-18 10:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, my hands are not big enough to conjure the emacs search replace key strokes.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually "sed" uses the same format.
And vi is better than EMACS. :q!
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
EDT has a similar substitute command, but I rarely use line mode.
|
|
|
|
|
I just found this in a comment to a question:
Quote: ...because the code you show is absurd.
I know abstract classes, but have not yet heard officially of absurd classes, but I have seen many of them. Will we now need a new class modifier?
public absurd class Foo
{
public absurd void DoSomethingAbsurd();
}What will be the impact in terms of inheritance? Must absurd methods be overridden? Or may they not be overriden at all?
Edit: Will there be such a thing as purely absurd classes, where every method and property is declared as absurd?
Will the absurdity level someone mentioned below be the inheritance depth of absurd base classes?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
modified 5-Jun-18 7:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the method should return something absurd as well? It'd be absurd if it didn't. We'll need a new data type too! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of this modifier in my time. Heck, I've been known to write a lot of code using absurd. BTW - it's a compiler switch which is probably why you've never seen it. It defaults to true.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: It defaults to true.
Only in VS 2008 and below: in the later versions it has an "Absurdity Level" which runs from 0 to 10. The default is 10 for new QA projects.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea to add this keyword to C++ and mark the Boost Library classes with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it's an attribute
[Absurd]
public class Foo
{
}
|
|
|
|
|
In C++, I suggest that we expand this as follows:
[[Absurd]]
[[Ludicrous]]
[[Plaid]]
Furthermore, in <type_traits>, we should add:
make_normal<t>::type
make_absurd<t>::type
make_ludicrous<t>::type
make_plaid<t>::type
is_normal<t>::value
is_absurd<t>::value
is_ludicrous<t>::value
is_plaid<t>::value
(Similar to make_signed<t>::type and is_signed<t>::value)
Is anyone volunteering to put it in proper proposal format? 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess we should extend this to the ZSpam and Absurd watch... 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature))
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that when code with the absurd keyword is run, it throws an event that decrements my _faith_in_humanity counter.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Simply have none and you will never be disappointed anymore.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
You are speaking nonsense to power today with eloquence !
Me appreciate
«... thank the gods that they have made you superior to those events which they have not placed within your own control, rendered you accountable for that only which is within you own control For what, then, have they made you responsible? For that which is alone in your own power—a right use of things as they appear.» Discourses of Epictetus Book I:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns
Some people really have worries. Instead of thinking about their tasks at hand, they obscess over how something is written.
The worst is going out of your way to establish style rules. I have seen style rule documents which were honestly more complicated than our tax laws. One million rules, with at least another million exceptions to each. Code reviews were mustly about discussing new rules or exceptions than accomplishing anything productive. What a waste of time.
Paradigms like object orientation or functional programming look at things from different angles. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is absolutely subjective which ones suit you best. For example, I hate functional languages. I understand the concept, but having to use them is no pleasure at all for me. On the other hand I can sit there and merrily write down machine code or assembly, full of pointers, memory management, jumps (= GOTOs) and a general lack of abstraction, which apparently very many have extreme problems with. So the level of absurdity in ane language or another is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
