AMO:Editors/EditorGuide/AddonReviews

Add-on Reviews

The Queues

The nominated and pending add-on queues are sorted by waiting time, with the longest waiting add-on at the top. They show the same information for every pending review:

• Add-on name and version. This is a link to the add-on version review page.
  
• Add-on type.
  
• Waiting time.
  
• Flags. At the moment the only possible flag is the Admin Review flag; it's the green add-on icon with a yellow warning sign on top. Only admin editors can review add-ons with this flag.
  
• Applications. Application icons of the applications this add-on supports.
  
• Additional information. This can indicate if the add-on is platform-specific, site-specific, or requires external software.
  

If an add-on version is supported on more than one platform, but not all of them, an entry will appear in the queue for each platform. All entries link to the same review page.

You should always try to review the add-ons near the top of queue. Always favor the add-ons that have been waiting for the longest time. Having said that, the few add-ons that are at the very top and have been waiting for a much longer time than the rest (sometimes multiple days more than the next one) are likely to be add-ons that require special review from an admin editor, or are awaiting a response from the developer. Try to focus on the first 10 or 15 add-ons in the queues. There should be a couple there that you can review.

Performing a Review

Select a review in the review queue and click on the link. It's a good idea to have a note-taking program open and write any notes you have during the review. This is very useful when redacting the final review message for the author.

Note: If you're a new editor doing the editor tool tutorial, the admin editor should have given you a specific add-on to review. Also, don't submit your first review without admin approval!

Step 1: Review Add-on Info

The review page has most of the information you need to review an add-on.

Metadata

The top section displays the add-on name, version, authors, categories and compatibility information.

• If the name is missing, it's very likely that the author assigned a name to the add-on in a locale different from English and forgot to include an English translation. In this case, an information request should be sent to the author to correct this. If there are other reasons to reject the add-on, the name issue should be included as one of the things to fix.
  
• Make sure the compatiblity information is up to date. Add-ons should be compatible with the latest stable versions of the applications they support, and around the time of a new major version release it's worthwhile to give a note to authors about updating compatibility.
  

Descriptions

The middle section includes lots of information that you should always read:

• Nomination message: this is the message written by the author when the add-on was first nominated. It can contain important information about testing or source code availability.
  
• Notes to reviewer: also a note from the author to AMO Editors, but it can change for each version. It often contains information about the changes in this version.
  
• Summary, description, developer notes: the same data that appears in the public add-on page. This information should clearly say what the add-on does and how to use it. Most add-ons should be easily usable with no additional explanation, but others may require it, and this is where everything should be explained.
  
• Version notes: this is very important when reviewing updates. It'll help you understand what the code changes are supposed to do.
• Privacy Policy and EULA: they most clearly state what the add-on does with private user data or any usage restrictions it may have.

This should all give you a good picture of what the add-on does.

Add-on Relevance

For nominations, at this point you should ask yourself if the add-on is relevant enough to make it public on AMO. We have a very low admission threshold, but we don't want to publish add-ons that will get at most a couple hundred downloads and will be mostly ignored during their lifetime. Add-ons that commonly fall into this category are:

• Add-ons that help access very specific webpages. For example, an add-on that makes it easier to use an internal business site or a university library.
• Add-ons targeted to a limited geographical area. For example, an add-on for a local city newspaper or radio station.
• Add-ons that add a toolbar or menu filled with website links.
• Add-ons that download video files from Flash video sites like YouTube. We already have too many add-ons like these, with little to no distinction between them. Unless the add-on provides something really innovative to video downloading, it should be rejected.

Assessing the relevance of an add-on can be difficult. In these cases you should go to the add-on page and see how many reviews and downloads the add-on has. The add-on page is accessible using the Item Overview link near the top of the review page.

Small numbers (less than a couple hundred downloads, few or no reviews) should be an indication that the add-on should be rejected. When in doubt, leave the review to somebody else or ask in the mailing list.

Review History and Editor Comments

Below the descriptions you should see the add-on version review history. The review history contains all previous reviews peformed to the add-on, including the editor notes for each one of them.

This is very valuable information, and you should always read at least the most recent reviews. If the last review was a rejection, you should verify that all issues noted in the previous review were addressed. If an editor made a request for information that hasn't been answered yet, you should not review that add-on. Most add-ons in the nomination queue will have this section empty because they haven't been reviewed before.

Editor comments are rarely used, but if there are any, you should read them. They are only used for internal communication between editors. You can add notes about this review, like if the source viewer or diff tool didn't work for you, but you can use the mailing list for that as well.