Today is day 18 of not being able to publish our app.
A few things we’ve learned:
- The review team is actually outsourced to another country where English is not the first language
- When you appeal a rejection, it is reviewed by a Google employee and their English seems fine
Our app was initially rejected (by the outsourced company) due to Google Play’s User Generated Content Policy. I created a Google Drive folder with documents, screenshots and videos showing how Discourse has the required capabilities. I then submitted my appeal. The appeal was accepted by Google and they told me to resubmit the app, which I did. The review team then again rejected the app update due to Google Play’s User Generated Content Policy. I submitted another appeal and Google again accepted the appeal and told me to resubmit the app. I again resubmitted the app and now we’re waiting on the review team to review it.
There’s clearly a communication issue here, as Google seems fine with the functionality, but the outsourced review team do not. In my opinion, Discourse does have the required capabilities and this is coming down to either a language or comprehension issue on the reviewer’s side.
Just a guess, but there might also be a system in place that rewards or punishes the outsourced reviewer for correct or incorrect app reviews, so there might be reluctance on their side to admit that your app is actually compliant. I’ve dealt with them on other apps too where they, for example, insisted for two months that I list the subscription details of an in-app purchase that was just a once-off purchase.
For anyone else running into this, here are the issues mentioned and how we dealt with them:
1. Providing an in-app function that allows users to report/flag other users for potential violations
We have a link in our community that we built using Nav Links Component that links to the Moderator group. I recorded a video where I show how you can tap on this link, then message the moderator group to directly report a user. Google accepted this, as the only requirement is that it be in-app. It doesn’t have to be a “report user” button.
2. Providing an in-app function that allows users to remove/block abusive users
Discourse has a mute/ignore system. Just make sure your site settings allows even new users with trust level 0 to mute/ignore users. I showed them a video of how to tap on a user to open their profile card, then enter into the user’s profile to ignore/mute them. Google accepted this.
3. Providing an in-app function that allows users to report/flag potential violating content
Discourse has its flag functionality for this, and it covers the requirement. It seems like the review team didn’t understand this. What’s funny is that they actually did flag a random post using their test account, and then included a screenshot showing they flagged a post, but still brought this up. I sent them a video showing how to flag posts. Google accepted this.
4. All users MUST accept the app’s terms of user/user policy provided by the developer before app usage
For this one, they sent a screenshot showing the sign in form where they are signing in with their test account. I’m assuming they meant to indicate that users don’t have to agree to the terms on each sign in. Reading the policy requirement, I can interpret it that users only need to accept this when they initially sign up.
As @pmusaraj mentioned, Discourse’s default sign up form already mentions the terms of service and privacy policy. To ensure compliance, we have a mandatory user field that the user must accept when signing in.
I sent them a video showing you that you can’t create an account without ticking the box, and Google accepted it.
5. App’s terms of user/user policy MUST define objectionable content and behaviors
We do already clearly define what acceptable and objectionable content in our community is. We have it in our terms of service and in our FAQ. This is a detailed set of guidelines that our moderators worked together on. I sent them a video of how to access the terms (About - FAQ / Terms of Service) and also sent them direct links to both of those pages. Google accepted this.