Thanks so much for your feedback and the very helpful discussion. We’ve all been reading and taking your feedback on board and will be adjusting as appropriate. We’ll be posting a followup within the next couple days to provide clarification on the questions asked here and the adjusted plan moving forward. We’re also going to work much harder at improving our communications around these things — this is a very key aspect that senior management, Japh and I discussed first thing this morning.
I also want to add that we want to do as much as we can to work with authors to ease the transition to new requirements and minimize, as much as possible, potential negative impact those changes might have on everyone. The main goal here is to start getting our submission requirements published and continually work with authors to improve them.
In the mean time, please hold tight while we pull together further information for clarification and revise how we launch the updated submission requirements, particularly the bigger changes with more significant potential impacts.
Hi Ostein, Apologies for the confusion. I’m ensuring the staff are aware of this right now and have set your item to a soft-disabled state.
Now the story facing a twist!Is it allowed to get soft -disabled and upload somewhere else while also without breaking exclusivity agreement?
Occasionally authors have wanted to test the waters elsewhere and pretty much always come back. The problem with deleting an item and then undeleting it later is that it requires additional staff time (more than soft-disabling) and isn’t really to anyone’s benefit (the longer it’s not listed the fewer sales it generates) because it takes more time all around. My understanding is that so long as the item is not actively listed for sale on our marketplace(s) and others at the same time, an author will not be violating the exclusivity agreement.
My goal is to make the authoring process easier and to help everyone generate more sales. I know you’ll come back to us, so I want to make it easier for you to do that — since, you know, we’re the best place for you to sell your awesome work.
s**t just happens, no matter how well you test your code, any dev knows that and envato sites themselves are not bug free. That’s the main reason why we do update our items afterall, even without buyers notifying support. Hard to believe ms would stop selling their products each time a bug is spotted. A warning mail instead of an immediate soft reject would gain the same effect.
Right now it depends on the nature of the problem. For minor issues, items shouldn’t be disabled. Obviously major issues they should. However, we (the Review team) need to build more definition around what constitutes which, and we’re trying to get there as quickly as we can. This information would be published in the Knowledgebase for everyone’s awareness as well.
+ no reviews for updates we should be allow to have an immediate fix for files if theres a bug.
- theres no reason someone should wait 1-2 days(or more) for a bug fix when its just sitting in the queue.
- if the author has the file already excepted they should be trusted enough not to do nasty things in the code
- it frees up the reviewers time to focus on other things
Unfortunately what we know from experience is that updates can’t currently skip review. On the surface it seems like this is straight forward, but it’s actually not. That said, we would love to be able to enable this for authors but we’re not quite there yet.
The community team has brought this thread to my attention, apologies for the delay. I can understand the frustration and there’s been some discussion around this to improve the process, but ultimately what it comes down to is that if an item isn’t working as it should be then in most cases it needs to be disabled. This is primarily because buyers would be purchasing a broken item and potentially requesting refunds.
As authors it’s your responsibility to make sure your items work as described every time they’re uploaded or updated. This is the same principle used in physical retail stores.
That said, we are thinking about improvements that would better facilitate this process so there would be less effects to authors and buyers.
We aren’t trying to keep the community from talking but the original thread guidelines weren’t being followed as I had requested. It’s important to keep that thread uncluttered or updates are easily lost and hard to find. The community is more than welcome to discuss review times via another thread (such as this one).
Also, there was an update a few days ago that I felt was quite a valuable update, including this bit: In addition to this, we’ve just recently completed a 7 week project covering many aspects of the Review team and marketplaces, including a great deal of data analysis to be sure we’re making the best and most informed decisions possible. This project was fundamental for us to move forward with incrementally bigger steps and continue improving the marketplace review process.
A project of this size with a team the size of Review that covers our marketplaces is a big project and a substantial step forward. There has been substantial progress on GraphicRiver’s review queues that we will be updating the community on again soon and I am nearly at a point where I can post a thorough update on the Review team as a whole.
Thanks for understanding.
We did, indeed, remove Nicereply integration from the review message emails. Although we ideally want to provide that ability to authors (giving us feedback on reviews), we couldn’t justify the admin overhead of its maintenance and getting maximum value out of it when there’s so much else we’re trying to focus on improving.
Having said that, if you guys have more thoughts on it or a similar system, please do let me know. Thanks!
Carmen saidIs their any positions for CodeCanyon Reviewers? or ThemeForrest.
@Robvenom Yay, Melbourne dweller! You can apply for the GraphicRiver team here.
If I answer that, it could take this thread off-topic, so if you could get in touch with me via my profile contact page I’d be happy to fill you in.