canmove, Confirmed users
1,448
edits
Add-ons/Reviewers/Guide/Reviewing: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add-ons/Reviewers/Guide/Reviewing (view source)
Revision as of 20:36, 5 September 2016
, 5 September 2016Minor tweaks
(Added relevance / unlisted policy) |
(Minor tweaks) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Add-ons must not be rejected because a reviewer doesn't find them useful. We let AMO users make that call, and add-ons that aren't very useful won't gain much usage and have low search rankings, so they'll stay mostly out of the way. | Add-ons must not be rejected because a reviewer doesn't find them useful. We let AMO users make that call, and add-ons that aren't very useful won't gain much usage and have low search rankings, so they'll stay mostly out of the way. | ||
However, if it looks like an add-on shouldn't be '''listed''' on AMO, because it's intended for an internal company deployment, for testing purposes, or only private use, it should be rejected with a link to the [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution Distribution page]. | However, if it looks like an add-on shouldn't be '''listed''' on AMO, because it's intended for an internal company deployment, for testing purposes, or only private use, it should be rejected with the suggestion to go unlisted instead, and a link to the [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution Distribution page]. | ||
Add-ons that are potentially dangerous and have a limited audience (like SSL certificate installers) should be Rejected, while noting to the developer that they can submit the add-on as [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution Unlisted]. | Add-ons that are potentially dangerous and have a limited audience (like SSL certificate installers) should be Rejected, while noting to the developer that they can submit the add-on as [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution Unlisted]. | ||