Item DISABLED without forewarnings because of new code standards. REALLY?

It appears, from what I can see, that one item was soft-disabled with clear instructions on how to bring the item up to current coding standards. I suppose I would recommend putting in those changes and the item will be reviewed and up in no time.

Hello KingDog,
And what’s the problem with the idea of kindly warning authors BEFORE deactivating their plugins, in order to keep them active?

I appreciate your answer but… no.
We all received the same list, that is basically the one sent to newly uploaded items not passing the test.

This means we have to totally review our (perfectly working and selling) items. This might involve days.
However okay, it’s good to adhere to rules and is good to have polite code (even if there are very strict strict requirements).

But we need specific details to know what and where is wrong.
Plus is not fast at all: I worked util 2AM yesterday to immediately upload a patched version and 13 hours later I’m still waiting for a response.

Not knowing precisely what we have to fix, we might miss things (if you know how big plugins are made…) and then down again through the fix&validation process, taking days.

This could be a disaster: if you take down a topseller the damage consists in thousands of dollars!

It’s easy: inform, give a deadline, then disable. Period.

1 Like

That’s a fair enough point. I’m not aware of exact process of our review team for cleaning up old code, and whether they’re looking at the kind of numbers that would allow for any type of grace period, but I’m definitely looking into it.

Disabling an item that was already online by years and without any proper alert is definitely not the way to do it and there are no advantages for no one.

The correct way is the send an alert first, give a few days to fix the issue, and then disable it if not fixed.

Firstly, disabling items out of a sudden is not acceptable as it affects the authors sales and customers. Sales dropped, customers are not able to download / update items. Next, some items depend on another item, if you disable an item out of the blue, the entire portfolio cannot be used all of a sudden leaving customers running and asking authors questions like headless chickens.

Secondly, there are no clear instructions on which specific part needed to be reviewed. It’s a copy paste work as per email attachment screenshot below. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE. In addition, there supposed to be a ZendDesk ticket which is written to everyone, but nobody is getting the ZendDesk ticket which supposed to be telling us WHICH SPECIFIC part of THE CODING NEEDED TO BE FIXED.

review-response

We hope this issue can be RECTIFIIED and ADDRESSED the soonest.

So that means if there is single missing prefix to a css class somewhere in the 72,000 lines of code in my plugin and if I resubmit the update, I risk seeing my account banned ?

Yeah that’s not what it means and you know it. It doesn’t help to sensationalize the situation.

The regular procedure is we send a message in Zendesk with the issues to fix and inform the author that they need to answer the email in the next 48 hours to prevent the item from being soft-disabled. We also ask them how much time they will need to fix the problems.

Sometimes, in a rare occasion, an item will be soft-disabled and the author will receive the instructions in the process.

When the author has fixed the issues and uploaded the fixed item, the item comes to the queue and follows the normal flow and time of review.

1 Like

Yes, you are right. Thank you for the info.
Indeed, the procedure described here seems more normal than what we experienced.
For my part, I did not receive the message mentioned, which must be answered within 48 hours.

1 Like

Yes, no one received ZenDesk ticket even though in the email it’s written Envato is sending one, and the ticket supposed to have 2-way communication between Author and Reviewer, not just One-way communication where the Reviewer asked to add prefix in CSS file which consist of 100k lines. The author can give a reason why this is not feasible to do it, for example PHP plugin will not cause conflict with other plugin as this is not WordPress plugin as it can work as standalone.

Another example, as per forum post, someone might need to include an older jQuery or library for instance for some parts of the plugin to work, 2-way communication is needed. This will be much fairer than what’s happening right now.

And in the ZenDesk, it is important for the Reviewer to tell the author which file and line of code needed to be changed in order to be approved from soft disabled, because it’s the job as a Reviewer to review the code.

This is how it should work, but as far as I read here, no one received the alert. We were all disabled with potential catastrophic consequences (what if I am unable to review my whole code immediately?).

Actually my disabled item was approved again, but how to trust Envato anymore?
Things get worse and worse. Few days ago a refund was issued because of Envato e-mail system not targeting my answers, so I lost money because of an Envato bug (I already have an ongoing ticket about this with the support).

The marketplace became secondary compared to Elements, this fact it’s clear to everyone. However after all these years I really didn’t expect my items to be suddently disabled. As said on my initial post, I live exclusively on Envato earnings, but can’t put all my efforts on a platform kicking one of its best authors in this way.

This story will bring me (and hopefully more of us top-tier Codecanyon authors) to take serious decisions about my exclusivity.

@KingDog is following up on this thread with the CodeCanyon team, but I wanted to quickly jump into this thread to explain why I’ve unlisted the topic.

I’ve removed a post calling out a specific reviewer, and questioning their suitability for conducting their job. Do not call out other users here, whether they are customers, staff or other authors. That is not a constructive way to address this issue, and will not be tolerated on these forums.

Once we have more details to share about the current CodeCanyon library review process, we’ll continue to update this thread.

2 Likes

Hello,

When do you think you’ll have news for us, any estimate?

Thank you.

1 Like

@BenLeong - It’s been 8 days, do you have any news for us? We’re all here waiting so we know how to go about this. Thanks a lot, I know you guys are busy, but please take the time for us as well.

Do you really think something will change? :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Heya!

Just some more details on CodeCanyon library review.

Our CodeCanyon team is currently undertaking a library management project, checking older items to identify potential issues. This is in response to ongoing customer and author feedback about the need to remove outdated and non-functional items from the marketplace.

The current batch of items included in this review all have few or no sales within the last six months.

Items that do not meet the current CodeCanyon item requirements will generally be Soft Disabled, with a reviewer note containing instructions on what needs to be updated before re-submitting the item for review. Once the item has been resubmitted meeting our current requirements, it will be available for sale again.

Soft Disabled items are not available for purchase, but are still able to be downloaded by customers who have previously purchased them. This is a recent change to the Soft Disabled item state, in order to minimise the disruption to existing customers while the items are updated.

Thanks!

1 Like

Thanks KingDog for the update,
to be honest my disabled item was updated in February and didn’t contain any old library. It is surely one of my plugins selling less though.

The immediate disabling policy is not appropriate in my opinion. We might have advertising campaigns pushing portfolio item links and they would land to a “404” page. A week of forewarning is surely better and more respectful.

1 Like

Thank you very much for those explanations.
The procedure explained here seems fair, logical and reassures me.

For my part, the soft disabled plugins were put back online very quickly after correcting the points mentioned.
It’s all good :+1:

1 Like

Thanks for the update.
I still believe you should send a warning first, give us a bit of time, and disable only after this.

3 Likes