
Appeal accepted: Google removed my ads-free app for “deceptive ads” - jeremydeanlakey
http://www.purpleleafsoftware.com/2019/03/appeal-rejected-google-removed-ad-free.html
======
gpm
Jeremy says he wrote "something very close to" the following for his appeal,
how would you have written it?

> "Mommy Saver Plus was removed for 'deceptive ads' which is a little silly
> because there is no ads in the app. The attached screenshots have nothing to
> do with Mommy Saver Plus."

I think it would be a bit too easy for someone a google employee reading this
to go 'he's saying he doesn't consider them ads, and ranting about the
screenshots out of frustration'. That's not a reasonable thing for the google
employee to do, but it is a possible one. I think I would prefer something
like

> The evidence attached for removing "Mommy Saver Plus" are screenshots from
> _a different app by a different developer_. "Mommy Saver Plus" was removed
> for having "deceptive ads", but unlike the app in the screenshot "Mommy
> Saver Plus" doesn't have any ads, so clearly this was done in error.

> Please see the attached screenshot of "Mommy Saver Plus" for comparison.

> Thanks,

> <Name>

~~~
jeremydeanlakey
I agree. I included my wording specifically because of this.

My response email to the rejection today was very clear. Unfortunately, it was
also passive aggressive.

Hopefully I'll learn to clear my head before reacting next time.

~~~
gpm
I can't really blame you, people do all sorts of stupid things under
anger/stress/etc... and that email, while not ideal, wasn't that bad. I've
sent worse.

I actually posted this hoping to spark some useful conversation on what a good
email to send would be, unfortunately all I've got are upvotes instead

~~~
jeremydeanlakey
> unfortunately all I've got are upvotes instead

I wouldn't call that unfortunate. You pretty much nailed it and no one has
much to add.

~~~
gpm
I mean, this way I don't learn anything. I'm sure there are people who would
have written it differently, and I'd love to see how.

------
jeremydeanlakey
Update: Google's reversed their decision and the appeal is accepted.

I wrote a passive-aggressive email. I posted this. I tweeted at them (first
tweet ever).

I'm not sure what worked, but something got through. Thanks all for the
support.

~~~
Derek_MK
Wow, I've never been able to get a real person at Google to review a case of
supposedly breaking ToS. My Google account got suspended for "traffic
pumping". I didn't know what "traffic pumping" was at the time but after
looking it up, it looks like they thought I was a bot for a phone carrier
trying to commit fraud:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pumping)

For reference, I haven't ever used the Google account for anything like Google
Duo, Allo, Hangouts, etc. There was an appeal system linked in the message
saying "You broke the terms", but when I filled it out, about 24 hrs later I
got a response saying "You can't appeal if you broke the terms", which seems
inconsistent at best.

I managed to track down a Google support employee and basically told him "Hey,
it should be obvious that I'm a real person and not a bot for a phone
carrier". His response at first was "The appeal should work, let me know if it
doesn't". I told him that it didn't work, and his response was "Well we're not
allowed to help you if the automated system says you broke the terms. You must
have broken the terms."

Happy for you getting anything out of them other than a brick wall, at least.

EDIT - To pre-empt some questions that may come up: I was using a unique,
randomly generated password for my Google account. Plus, you have to be able
to login to the account to see the "You broke the terms" message, so the
password was definitely not changed.

~~~
Osiris
"you must have broken the terms"

Is this attitude prevalent in Google: pure trust in automated systems?
Engineers should know better than any that software is not perfect and it's
insane to have blind trust in it.

~~~
Derek_MK
I can totally understand it in cases where the alleged offense is something
like uploading copyrighted content to YouTube, where there is clear evidence
and an audit trail saying "Here's what you uploaded, here's when you uploaded
it, and here's the point where the rights holder registered it in ContentID,
etc"

But this is a case where they thought my account was a bot. And I contacted
the guy, as a very real person. At that point it's pretty much just sticking
one's fingers in one's ears yelling "NANANANANA"

~~~
fro0116
> I can totally understand it in cases where the alleged offense is something
> like uploading copyrighted content to YouTube, where there is clear evidence
> and an audit trail saying "Here's what you uploaded, here's when you
> uploaded it, and here's the point where the rights holder registered it in
> ContentID, etc"

Probably not the best example. There are countless reports of ContentID
falsely claiming copyright violations. I personally had a gaming video muted
for violating some copyright by some company I never heard of when the only
thing playing were ingame sound effects (no music).

------
superasn
Congrats on getting back but it's sad that this story had two be on frontpage
of HN twice before they took notice and accepted their fault.

Chances of this happening again are very slim for the next guy who falls prey
to their faulty moderation (ai).

------
andrewstuart
As I posted about recently - big organisations need to have an ombudsman - a
way to resolve problems when the company's ordinary support mechanisms fail to
resolve issues.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19092039](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19092039)

It's silly that the only way to get big companies to resolve crazy failings in
their normal processes is to take the problem public on social media.

Instead they should have a built in process that operates outside their normal
systems - an ombudsman who has the power and authority to instruct other areas
of the organisation to make different decisions.

~~~
rhizome
I'm not sure how you square that against the reality that many companies
specifically and obviously do not have humans backing up these things. Do you
think Google has never heard of human support? When you have hundreds of
millions of people clamoring for your products, ignoring several million --
regardless of what the issues might be -- is easy. These things literally do
not show up on their radar, which is why stupid shit like posting to HN about
it is required to get a basic level of service _and fairness_ out of the
system.

Their organization and priorities absolutely do not leave room for support for
everyday people. There is zero evidence that they have any intentions of
changing this, just like every other one of the past 20 years.

------
colinbartlett
So if I get this correct, the app ID of com.mommysaverapp.plus is correct but
the screenshots they use to justify their app removal are not from that app?!

~~~
userbinator
Do apps have a GUID or some other _actually unique_ identifier they can use?
It seems a huge oversight to not have or use such an ID, even if it's
something as simple as a cryptographic hash of the binary(ies).

(Not an Android developer. Thought of starting but never did --- for mostly
different reasons, however.)

~~~
rkcr
The app ID is a unique identifier. Once you claim an app ID, it's yours
forever.

------
jeremydeanlakey
I tried tweeting at them now. My first tweet ever. (Please someone tell me if
I goofed it in any way.)

[https://twitter.com/jeremydeanlakey/status/11106845016659968...](https://twitter.com/jeremydeanlakey/status/1110684501665996800)

~~~
Osiris
This is the only thing I use Twitter for also. Trying to get support from a
business.

~~~
blunte
It actually works better than many other methods of reaching support for many
companies, and that's a real unfortunate reality.

------
eyeareque
I guess hacker news is the only place where google gives their customers
support.

~~~
ganeshkrishnan
I don't think they care about HN. It's too niche. I posted multiple times to
reinstate my account but never got it reinstated.

~~~
eyeareque
I should have stated the front page gets you support :)

------
blunte
There is no excuse for Google mistaking one app for another. They have
literally all the data, so they know which app is which better than any other
party in existence. It's their Play store!

It bothers me greatly that not only can they shut down your app, but they can
shut down your Google account (and any future accounts they might deem as
being related...)

What are the chances that they might accidentally (human failure or algo
failure) believe one Google account is related to another "bad" account and
close the good account? It certainly seems possible given that obviously
Google does not have complete control over its systems.

------
hs86
Context:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19487506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19487506)

------
noobermin
It would be nice again to question why must Google control everything and
whether that's a good or bad thing.

~~~
majewsky
No no, you got that all wrong. When you have an iOS device, it's Apple who
controls everything. See? No monopoly!!!111

------
neilv
The frequent lack of due process by the app stores is another reason I've been
trying to do Web-first, in some startup ideas I've been tossing around.

I did ship a complex HTML5 Offline app for a client, and it was more pain than
it should've been, but I made it work. (Tip: the two big mobile platform
owners seem to have an obvious disincentive for HTML5 Offline to work well.)
If I do something Web-first, it'll be handheld&desktop responsive, and I'll be
keeping a smooth path to HTML5 Offline in mind as a possible alternative to
the app stores.

~~~
nat8265639392
Not an app developer. But isn’t a big reason for native apps just to harvest
more metrics and data about your customers? (Not implying anything bad about
that in this context btw)

~~~
JimDabell
> But isn’t a big reason for native apps just to harvest more metrics and data
> about your customers?

I've been a native app developer for ten years, I've worked on dozens and
dozens of apps, and I know a tonne of app developers and entrepreneurs.

I don't think I've come across a single case of somebody saying that they want
an app for those reasons.

The closest I can think of is a loyalty card app, and they got the usage data
through use of the loyalty system, not by spying on your phone, and it didn't
matter whether you used the plastic card, the website, or the app.

------
anonlastname
Google can be very difficult when it comes to approving add-ons for their add-
on store as well. They approved my add-on that blocks porn ads on a certain
website, but won't accept a trivial update on the grounds that it is too NSFW.

They make you provide a screenshot to submit an add-on. I used a screenshot of
the website it works on with the porn ads it blocks heavily pixelated. I can't
think of any other way to take a screenshot of what my add-on does. So I guess
users will have to do without the new update.

------
wolfgke
"This part scares me:

'... repeated violations can result in the suspension of this app or your
Google Play Developer account.'"

Learn the lessson not to make yourself dependent on a despot.

------
otterley
I’m curious, you redacted something but don’t talk about it. What was the
alleged “disguised app” you redacted, and why might they have thought you were
disguising it?

And why did you redact this fact?

~~~
Dylan16807
It's in the screenshots in the previous post. The app on the right whose name
is covered in a purple box.

It's redacted because that app has nothing to do with OP.

------
unreal37
Your mistake was writing a "two sentence appeal" and expecting it would do
anything.

Appeal again. But this time, put some real effort into it. Spend more than 2
seconds on it. Really make it clear that your app does not contain ads and the
screenshot is not your app.

~~~
MichaelDickens
I've never worked in customer service but this seems wrong to me. I would
expect that you would be able to communicate more effectively by saying the
single core thing you need to say, because the more words you add, the less
likely they are to miss that part, or even to not read anything in your
message at all.

~~~
derefr
If a message is _really really important_ , then you don't make it short and
you don't pad it with fluff either. Instead, you say the simple thing you need
communicated, over and over again in different ways, together with supporting
evidence. Then, anywhere their eyes land on the page, they'll understand your
message.

