I do not understand why my upload is rejected.

javascript
html5
#1

Hi All,

I just uploaded my code on CodeCanyon, I am not sure why it is rejected. The demo site is here.

https://welrtc.firebaseapp.com/home

#2

What is it?

There’s no explanation as to what the code is for or does.

Contact and about are both empty which makes it look unfinished

#3

The core module must login to view, that is Video chat app, build based on Angular 4 and WebRTC.

#4

I think you need to really work on your items customer experience and make all of that clear.

Also on the “must login” - is there a way around that? Can people use duplicate emails such as test@test.com - capturing people’s authentic data just to view your demo is not only going to be a huge barrier to trial but I am not even sure envato will allow it

#5

Thank you for your reply. I know what to do now. One more question if I can resubmit the app again after hard reject?

#6

You can but you have to make significant changes to it first (to the point that it is almost a new item)

Upgrading the user experience and adding details, demos, instructions etc. will help with this

#7

:sunglasses:

#8

This homepage, usually on such sites, has a big hd background over the screen that kind of makes sense what’s on the page. Also it needs more info then just login form. Check the facebook page while logged out, that’s what you’re aiming for. Then, About and Contact empty pages? You really need some content, let’s say this is just not finished (10% as far as “I can use it”). And yes, you can re-submit that if you make all these changes. They didn’t say your coding/script is bad. Thanks!

#9

Thank you @dzeriho for your suggestion. My original thought is buyer will focus on the functionality of the app not content. Now I realize that is incorrect. If CodeCanyon can provide suggestion like yours, I think that will be better. Their reject reason is so simple, just tell me quality not match …

#10

@charlie4282 I am rejected again, any suggestion about that? The site looks more better I think.

#11

@dzeriho any suggestion about the changes? I was rejected again …

#12

What did you change?

#13

The first version home page is very simple just a indigo big banner, contact and about us screen is empty. Other friends suggest me to make the content more rich and texts, let buyers can know what the app is used for.

But after I change, also rejected, I did not know the reason, that is very very not friendly.

#14

Yeah, my point is that just saying that it’s better and you’ve made improvements, isn’t really enough for people to provide any further advice. You might want to show the latest version.

#15

I already deployed the latest version on the website. Please help me to point out what I can do to avoid rejecting again?

#16

It’s still a way from being ready -

  • The landing page execution needs a lot of work in terms of improving the hero area, typography, hierarchy, spacing etc.

  • The fact that beyond the landing page it just defaults to flat login/sign up page which bears no consistency to the front page makes it feel very unfinished

You need to focus on the entire customer experience and how the item is displayed, explained and delivered, just as much as what the actual does once someone uses it

#17

@charlie4282

I think my app’s purpose is focus on who want to learn Webrtc, Angular 4 and Material. The buyer can learn from the code to know how to integrate them.

This is not a plugin which user can use directly. Just like most of the mobile items on Codecanyon, they just upload an App which for buyer learning.

This is also not a theme. All of suggestions is about ‘Home page’ display, explain, typography, spacing etc. That is not useful to final buyer, I have a bit more detail document guide in the zip file uploaded for review.

Why I need to spend lots of time to let client to know what is video call, how to use video call? This is just a living preview site, not a product instruction site. Sorry here, I did not tell you before.

Whatever I said, Thank you very much about help.

#18

It’s not entirely about explaining how to use a video chat - it’s about creating a premium quality product from start to finish. Right now the landing page does not appear premium in design or execution and this will be a consideration when submitting here even if it does not affect the actual app’s functionality itself.

If the end product is not actually practical and more “for learning” then either you may need to reconsider what category it goes into or it may simply not be suitable for this marketplace.

#19

Thank you for your reply first.

What is ‘premium in design’? I am not a designer, but when I uploaded the screenshots to behance.net, they are professional designer, they said ‘Looks Nice’. Everyone have different aesthetic standard.

Here is CODE Canyon, did the reviewer red the code? If the code is simply? If a reviewer can only view the home screen judge the production’s quality, I think this marketplace is not as good as my expected. It is blocked by reviewer do not understand client.

I have access tracking use GA and Firebase, ONLY ONE new user registered and see the video screen. That means the reviewer did not review my site or code seriously.

I just want to make something can help others. I can promise if client view my app, they will like to pay for it, but absolutely not because home page. I know what they wantm three words can explain everything ‘WebRTC’, ‘Angular 4’, ‘Material Design’, that is enough.

CODE QUALITY not TEXT QUALITY.

#20

With all due respect, you are missing the point.

Developing for a stock marketplace is entirely different from designing or building for clients or even many other types of marketplace. The output you create both in terms of how it is presented, how it functions and the practicality i.e. what value it brings, how versatile it is etc. are all important.

To put this in context as an example - we’ve seen some incredible website designs get rejected here. Often it’s not that the sites’ design or code was not up to standard - it was because the concept was too basic, does not offer enough flexibility to meet varied requirements of so many potential different buyers etc. I remember some sites which I am certain a client would be very happy with, but this does not make them right or practical for a stock marketplace.

It really does not matter how good your app or code is if the complete package is not there.

Based on what you say about the GA insight my guess is that the reviewer is loading the file and the lack of premium execution means that this is enough for them to not look at the code or app because this initial presentation is already a non-negotiable barrier. It also probably gives off the feeling that the app itself (while I understand they wouldn’t be able to tell if they don;t test it) may not be up to scratch in terms of design, code or execution.

Further to htis there are already a lot of people moaning about review times - this is yet another reason why the item needs to be up to standard from the start. It does not need o be award winning creativity but the reviewer cannot always go through the full process to see if it might be ok further in.

1 Like