Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ẌṾΣṜṨḭṒṆ

My Extensions have been Rejected.

Recommended Posts

Hello Guys,

I was looking up how to make Maxthon Extensions and have decided to Make a Extension for Microsoft Hotmail because I use it and there isn't one currently, so I decided to do it myself and submit it to the Maxthon Extension, after 24 hours I checked it was rejected with a reason stating, Not suitable for Sidebar, which I personally think is nonsense as there Extensions that barley no one uses, I am sure you have all heard of Hotmail, and I think its worthy of having its own Extension.

So I decided to make an Advanced QR Code Extension, it was rejected as well for the same reason.

You can check my addons/extensions Here in the Attachment:

Microsoft Hotmail.mxaddon

Kaywa QR Code.mxaddon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not the first to have stuff rejected - not sure what their criteria is - i have just submitted one for the toolbar in MX4 - i fully expect them to reject that as they do not work in the toolbar - except they do

what you can do about it not sure - it does not seem a transparent process - why they have to approve it in the first place i have no idea - if you want it just for personal use you can use an existing sidebar guid from the extensions that are packaged with the browser - thats how i get them to work in the toolbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well mine was also rejected - reason - already in MX4 - right and wrong - its not in quicktools where i and others want it - there must be a better way to get info why than hoping for a reply on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tony. replied at 2013-5-14 23:58 back.gif

well mine was also rejected - reason - already in MX4 - right and wrong - its not in quicktools wher ...

I don't know whois in charge of this.. I will ask and let you know

sigmax.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

odyssee replied at 2013-5-15 00:01 back.gif

I don't know whois in charge of this.. I will ask and let you know

thanks - there must be a better line of communication - a three word reason may be fine in some cases but ......... - there is a comment box but thats really for comments if and when the extension is published

there should be a better contact method or more info - it seems to be no better than ask and hope at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

odyssee replied at 2013-5-15 00:01 back.gif

I don't know whois in charge of this.. I will ask and let you know

as far as I know, smilefly is the rep in charge of extensions and skins, though I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ẌṾΣṜṨḭṒṆ replied at 2013-5-15 11:41 back.gif

I am pointing out but there are some extensions that are useless and mine seems to be reasonably use ...

I've installed it and it seems to work well. I would have liked that it could display in a bigger window, as it is now it is unresizable.

By the way, most of the extensions were created for M3, and whether they are useless depends on the user. :)

You are aware that side bar buttons can be made from any site, I just made this shortcut to outlook, the difference is that it opens in a full page.

2095

post-7385961-14315110264713_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tony. replied at 2013-5-14 23:58 back.gif

well mine was also rejected - reason - already in MX4 - right and wrong - its not in quicktools wher ...

I've had a couple of my file-hoster sidebar extensions rejected, so yeah, you're all not alone. Mine weren't even given a reason or message - just rejected without any explanation. ONE of those rejected, I repeat ONE, was given a reason, but it was especially vague: "The package is bad." It wasn't corrupted for me, if that's what they had meant - installed and everything, and in fact I have them uploaded to the forum, and people confirm they work, so doesn't make sense. Unless they had meant something else, in which case, they could have specified more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems a poor sstem to me - i cannot see why they need to have control of it in the way they do - yes if an extension is marked as 'official' then it should be checked that it does not break anything but why should they have to have an official guid number in them to work - the browser is released to the user - what the user does with it is not the concern of maxthon from that point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tony. replied at 2013-5-27 13:28 back.gif

it seems a poor sstem to me - i cannot see why they need to have control of it in the way they do - ...

they're only looking out for us.

Perhaps it could be better-managed in regards to what becomes accepted, but as far as control: they need to be checked, as you say in the first line.

The guidelines are fine with me, nothing wrong there: I just often feel like extensions that are rejected are being rejected on the supposed basis of the guidelines (at least by assumption of logic/implication), but that some of these rejected extensions don't break any of the guidelines per se.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I see your point, and I have to concur for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as i say it depends what a user wants them for - i want noads and a couple of others in the quicktools bar - i dont use the dock so whilst there are 'official' ones for there they are no use to me - to get them where i want involves a workaround - thats fine for me i can do that - others who also want them in quicktools may not be able to - so the system is flawed i think

i am not talking about uploading them - the 2 i uploaded was to see if they would approve them or more correctly assume they would not and try to work out why - i now understand the system - its poor - as said above they should not restrict usage after the fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tony. replied at 2013-5-27 13:43 back.gif

as i say it depends what a user wants them for - i want noads and a couple of others in the quicktoo ...

I'm not disagreeing, tony. Also, odyssee please check your emails - was the best comparison I could think of, because I am not understood a lot of the time, and wanted to clarify. And not political: historical. Either way though, wasn't INTENDED to be about anything other than my point regarding the extensions: I'm very bad with coming up with examples, or even comparisons. Trust me, I've said a lot worse, and I don't even realize the severity until someone points out; call it unknowing social awkwardness, I suppose. Anyway so, sorry for that. I didn't see it as that, so I hadn't thought twice. No offense intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ẌṾΣṜṨḭṒṆ replied at 2013-6-22 09:52 back.gif

to be honest I don't think extensions need to be checked manually, infact they should be checked aut ...

no doubt there are faults - it's still better than most systems though, if you think about it, though: The webstore and Mozilla addons site have SOME malicious/adware/suspicious/PuP addons, yet they are still there.

No doubt there's bound to be a few in Maxthon as well - for instance, the Babylon addon, but other than that (which I just know from being a *hobbyist* malware researcher and not from actually having tried it), all so far I've tried, are clean. Then again, I haven't tried all. Maybe statistically, it means nothing, but it's certainly something to take into consideration.

Giving comments on *why* an extension is rejected, definitely needs some work. I understand, and totally, 100% empathize that the staff are busy, but nothing needs an extensive response. All it needs is something a bit more than "bad package" which could mean anything, especially if the addon works. I've tried downloading some extensions that, first off, fail to "install" because they're supposedly corrupt, yet they're not, and everyone else confirms it works finely, and then I try again some-time else, and it works yet again. If that is behind such rejection notifications, then re-checking of extensions to see if they work, could be useful, because there are a lot of extensions being filtered out, that *do* work. As stated above, some are not given ANY rejection comment, which is kind of useless.

In the end, I definitely *love* the Maxthon team, and I will always, forever-after, remain a Maxthon Patriot, but I am sad to say I have to be critical in this case of methods used.

(note: out of all the sidebar extensions I've tried uploading, the only one that had passed was a drop.st one, and of course, quite unluckily, out of all the file-hosters the sidebar addons support, the ONLY one that has now shut-down, IS specifically THAT, and only that ONE file-hoster. All the file-hosters whose sidebar extensions were rejected, are STILL open for business)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats all well and good - but not everybody wants to publish extensions - but there is too much restriction - especially in the toolbar area - only the embedded guid numbers can be used for toolbar extensions - why?? - i want 3 or 4 in that area and have got them working by deleting one installed with the browser and using its guid in my own extension - thats not a good solution - it works but it should not be required to do that - its too restrictive - they publish the software but once its out in the wild they do not own it

yes - certainly if an extension is going to be published it should conform to certain standards - i assume it needs a unique guid number to be synced on the cloud - but if its never published then a user should be able to use it without all the messing that has to be done now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tony. replied at 2013-6-22 16:42 back.gif

thats all well and good - but not everybody wants to publish extensions - but there is too much rest ...

that's another thing - sadly, if it's not published, then it won't sync. Yes, it's the GUID that's sync'ed.

True, I don't use sync, but it's still a problem - there are A LOT of addons people use that are uploaded to the forum, and not uploaded to the extension center: when you're relying on sync, then they don't transfer over. Perhaps if you're on the same computer, already-existent ones will stay there, but if you're on another system, it won't be there for you, and you'd need to use portable in a SFX archive like I do, for college, with sync'ing disabled, because it does no good if you like sync with extension support, or not at all.

The same thing also happens in Chromium and FF - constantly having to reinstall addons, particularly the ones that are off-site and found elsewhere, so much so that I've just ended up uploading them to file-hosters so I can have easy access.

Maybe sync'ing the files themselves isn't the best idea speed-wise, and it's surely easier to sync ONLY the GUID, and not the file itself, but at least it might eliminate this problem for people suffering it.

And then comes, also, modded extensions - even if the extension IS on the extension center, doesn't mean you're using the official version. I will often mod others' extensions. I don't want to lose those mods, even if it means having *virtually* the same addon. I presume there are other people out there who feel the same way.

I am not entirely sure, but I could figure that if there's already an extension in the designated folder in userdata, and the GUID number is the same, that it would NOT even matter if you're on the same system, because the official author's version of the extension is sync'ed, and upon reboot of Maxthon, the old one is deleted. Often, for that matter, that's not even the case, and there will be 2, eventually more, of the same addon, because it fails to delete, presumably when Maxthon exits prematurely and not properly, then you'll eventually have 5 or so of the same addon in your addons folder.

And the number after which the addon files are named, is not even the GUID number, and even if it were, it's pretty hard to figure out which extension is which, if you go in the addons folder manually, to do stuff like delete, or unpack/mod, etc. In my opinion, they should be named their actual name, or in the least they should have the GUID number.

And on top of this, as far as I know, while most other things sync, including extensions themselves (speaking not in terms of the file itself), the addonsdata ini files and custom settings defined for different extensions, do NOT sync. So if you move to a new system, you might have the extension, but you certainly don't have the custom config you might have worked hard on. A significant example would be Stylish, Violentmonkey, or NoAds. Certainly, those are amongst the 3 most important setting files you do not want to lose, of all things. The others are easily done again or the settings are pre-determined and mean virtually nothing unless you manually tweak, but these are things that are frustrating to lose, most of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites