Anyone have their apps rejected by Google per new policy?

I’ve read a lot of discussion about the new policy, but haven’t seen examples of app rejections as promised by the policy. Has anyone had their app rejected since Aug 23? If so, how detailed was the message from Google?

Your post reminded me that Google should create a page dedicated to the apps banned that day or earlier - with archived screenshots.

Perhaps a tutorial page which points to specific apps and why they were banned.

Again this may reveal too much about how Google identifies some things etc. … so perhaps won’t see that …

We have got 30 days to change our apps before the new policy comes to work.

Edit: I mean for existing apps ofcourse.

This page does provide some nice examples, though it doesn’t specifically call out the offending apps or libraries: Ads | Android Developers

That is for existing apps, all updates/new apps have to apply to the policy immediately.

Yes and no. Per this paragraph in the developer email:
Any apps or updates published after this notification are immediately subject to the latest version of the Program Policy. If you find any existing apps in your catalog that don’t comply, we ask you to fix and republish the application within 30 calendar days of receiving this email. After this period, existing applications discovered to be in violation may be subject to warning or removal from Google Play.

Any app published after Aug 23rd is subject to the new policy. I would think that a few people would have pushed a new version with banned ads before they read the new policy.

Thanks for the link provided. I am reading section Disclosure of Ads to Users (Ads | Android Developers) over and over again, and I just can’t believe what I am reading. Is this new…

Guidelines are:
[ul]
[li]Tell users about your ads
[/li][li]Make sure users know
[/li][li]Ask for consent (opt-in) at launch
[/li][/ul]

My apps have “ads disclosure” in privacy policy, linked from google play app listings. Seems this is not enough any longer.

Is now opt-in for ads like admob banners and similar required, or what?

??

WTF? They want every free app on the market to display a long EULA at the beginning or what? :expressionless: Their lawyers must have overtaken Android department.
Also: “Ad impersonates app UI” example is trange. It looks like “more apps” buttons pointing to appwalls might also not be allowed…? And the policy is still not clear about exit interstitials.

This is also interesting: http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/policies/spam.html - “This game is as addictive as Angry Birds, more social than Facebook and Twitter, and has a soundtrack reminiscent of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga.”. I wonder if it is allowed to list similar apps/games (“This game is inspired/similar to … and …”). If not, all my competition will be banned (including me).

haha, on that same link I see:

For this reason, all adwalls must give the user the option to cancel or otherwise dismiss the ad without penalty. Interstitial ads may only be displayed inside of the app they came with. Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app is prohibited.

Now make appwalls and banners google complaint

Well, they are complaint though. Appwalls have “X” button, and banners are inside app and don’t force users to click.
The only grey area I see here is exit ad - is it inside app or not? I invoke it before exiting so it should be OK. When you hit the home button you see the appwall inside the app on the list of apps, so I assume it is OK.

According to “Display your ads within your UI—If possible, display ads only within your app’s UI. This leads to a better user experience a" helps avoid policy violations”,

my guess would be: if interstitial is displayed immediately upon exit, without delay, it is probably ok. If there is a delay, and home screen or UI of some other app is shown before interstitial, this might be a problem.

If the exit ad loads late i have seen the app close then show the phone base screen and boom an exit ad appears.

On page Spam | Android Developers writes about keywords:

Don’t use repetitive keywords—Avoid keywords that are repetitive or excessive.
Don’t include unrelated keywords or references — Your description should not be loaded with irrelevant keywords in an attempt to manipulate ranking or relevancy.

It is allowed to have the following description of the application:

Keywords: Tag1, Tag2, Tag3, Tag4, Tag5…

If tags relevant or tags are not repeated.

Did I understand correctly?

If the keywords are relevant, why don’t incorporate them into the app description? Keyword sections are an eye sore and look highly unprofessional/spammy.

Thanks for the link provided. I am reading section Disclosure of Ads to Users (Ads | Android Developers) over and over again, and I just can’t believe what I am reading. Is this new…

Guidelines are:
Tell users about your ads
Make sure users know
Ask for consent (opt-in) at launch

Ugh. This policy change is far wider reaching than I first thought. It’s obvious what Google is doing though: Free apps with third party advertisements don’t earn them any money, and clutter the Google Play store, taking attention from high quality apps that do make money for them. This policy change is the first move in a huge initiative to clean up Google Play. Get ready for a huge wave of bans in the next few months.
I’ve just updated all my apps to “medium maturity” because I’m showing ads and can’t control what they’re showing, and I added a privacy policy. Will add an ad disclaimer on app startup. What I’m unsure of: I offer to remove ads through IAP. So if someone declines the ad dialog, can I ask them to either purchase ad removal, or, if they don’t want that, to uninstall the app? I’m anticipating a wave a one star reviews… I’m definitely taking a long hard look if I will still use ads in my next app, or rather fully concentrate on IAP. Might not be a bad thing, because ads always take away from the polish of an app.

Isn´t it weird that they only mention showing a EULA about the ads here: Ads | Android Developers , and not mention it on Developer Policy Center???

I do think showing an Eula is recommend but not required, if it was required we should had seen that written on the Google Play Developer Content Policy page right?

Maybe I’m bitter and cynical, but what if Google is intentionally “hiding” this policy to be able to just ban “adware” developers at will for policy violations? If there is a huge outcry, they can just point to this rule and say, “Well, they didn’t ask for user consent to show ads.”

And get developers of real utility apps and games banned because they weren´t paying attention? Doing so would enrage a lot of serious and hard working developers and would only help boost other app stores like Amazon, something i don´t think Google wants. I speak for my self if it wasn´t for this thread i would never read the link provided here, and keep in mind that Google Developer Console points to the Google Play Developer Content Policy and not the other.

Same here, so far I thought the only change was that icon and push ads were banned. Which was fine by me, because I wouldn’t want either of them on my phone. But requiring to show an opt-in dialog to show banner ads, that’s a major change that affects millions of apps, and I wonder why this hasn’t been discussed more publicly.

From what I’ve seen so far from Google, they don’t really care about the developer community, especially the “long tail”. It’s an economy that’s more and more dominated by big players, and dealing with the small fish is costly in terms of support and doesn’t pay off. So it makes sense to me that Google would try to discourage small independent developers as much as possible. Maybe Apple does have the better approach here, with their manual approval process. At least there’s a human involved in making the decisions. I think Google is trying to automate as much as possible, steering the course of Google Play using policies and algorithms, and if a few lesser known high quality apps fall under the bus, that’s a risk they’re willing to take.

quote:
WTF? They want every free app on the market to display a long EULA at the beginning or what? :expressionless: Their lawyers must have overtaken Android department.
Also: “Ad impersonates app UI” example is trange. It looks like “more apps” buttons pointing to appwalls might also not be allowed…? And the policy is still not clear about exit interstitials.

This is also interesting: http://developer.android.com/distrib...cies/spam.html - "This game is as addictive as Angry Birds, more social than Facebook and Twitter, and has a soundtrack reminiscent of Katy Perry and Lady Gaga.". I wonder if it is allowed to list similar apps/games ("This game is inspired/similar to ... and ..."). If not, all my competition will be banned (including me).

I don’t think a “More Apps” button would be seen as bad - because there is no “impersonation” going on here. You are clearly labelling it as a “More Apps” or “More Suggested Apps” type thing.

Wll they do mention irrelevant inclusions of keywords as a problem - which may suggest that related ones COULD be included (?)

I wonder if Google keeps things “honest” (i.e. penalizing those identified by it’s algorithms as engaging in keyword stuffing) by marking down apps which have repeated keywords beyond a certain number ? Or perhaps more fairly - ranking an app based on (say) it’s top 5 keywrods ? This way it would be independent of any excessive keyword-stuffing as an app can only highlight itself SO much … ?

quote:
For this reason, all adwalls must give the user the option to cancel or otherwise dismiss the ad without penalty. Interstitial ads may only be displayed inside of the app they came with. Forcing the user to click on ads or submit personal information for advertising purposes in order to fully use an app is prohibited.
Now make appwalls and banners google complaint

Most are - though some have said Revmob exit button on the fullscreen ad was hard to press (too small). So these lead to inadvertent clicks …

quote:
Well, they are complaint though. Appwalls have “X” button, and banners are inside app and don’t force users to click.
The only grey area I see here is exit ad - is it inside app or not? I invoke it before exiting so it should be OK. When you hit the home button you see the appwall inside the app on the list of apps, so I assume it is OK.

quote:
my guess would be: if interstitial is displayed immediately upon exit, without delay, it is probably ok. If there is a delay, and home screen or UI of some other app is shown before interstitial, this might be a problem.

Good way of referring to the issue. Most AppWalls are instant, or their window appears instantly (even though it may be filled in slowly or wait icon appears etc.).

The worse example (of the conventional appwalls) are some that show a dark screen for a while or are triggered after a second (I think playhaven may do that … ?). These one sometimes show the ad after a small interval like 1 second - which can sometimes be confusing within app. I have not used this on app exit, so there maybe a confusing period there - though it is possible the home screen is NOT shown momentarily before the ad is finally shown (?).

quote:
Well, they are complaint though. Appwalls have “X” button, and banners are inside app and don’t force users to click.
The only grey area I see here is exit ad - is it inside app or not? I invoke it before exiting so it should be OK. When you hit the home button you see the appwall inside the app on the list of apps, so I assume it is OK.
If the exit ad loads late i have seen the app close then show the phone base screen and boom an exit ad appears.

Very interesting about the exit ad showing up slightly late (with some networks only) ?

FWIW, the consensus over at HackerNews is that the ad opt-in dialog is more of a suggestion than a hard requirement: New Google Play policy requires opt-in dialog to show ads | Hacker News
One guy brought up that the YouTube app for example does not even mention ads anywhere, it just displays them. But cynics might say that Google doesn’t have to follow their own rules…