02-14-2013 09:38 AM
I went from AIR to Cascades last year, because of the poor transition perfomance. Everything perfomed pretty well, except the transitions, so i feel with you.
The crucial point is indeed the "user benefits" criteria. Its fuzzy and not objective and I have the feeling to be at the mercy of the reviewer - an awkward situation.
Adding more features to differentiate is a point i can not accept too. This means, that i need to test and analyse every single competing app before. Maybe Your app can not do more than the competing apps, but is better designed and cheaper. Why not give the user the opportunity to choose between similar apps in the B4BB section.
Another example: What happens when i want to make a nice Cascades clock and the clock will offer the exact same features like the default clock but has a different design to fit the taste of special group. It might not qualify, because it has not more features than the default clock. Or will it? Who knows?
Sorry, BB the current situation is rediculous.
BB should provide us a checklist of OBJECTIVE criteria and guarantee us to get the label when the checklist is OK.
02-14-2013 09:38 AM
02-14-2013 09:44 AM
02-14-2013 09:53 AM
@ jtegen, I did not mean a checklist for a special category.
I refered to the current checklist of B4BB criteria which contains the "user benefits" criteria.
This checklist should be objective and comprehensible. In the current state it is not, especially because of the "user benefits" criteria.
02-14-2013 09:59 AM
02-14-2013 10:17 AM
"Problem is, user benefit to one might not be a benefit to another." Exactly!
My rejected app has benefit for at least 3 users who gave it 5 stars.
Others see no benefit at all, and thats OK.
This means the question of user benefit can not be answered by a single reviewer.
This issue will be a source of frustration now and in the future.
BB should adjust this criteria. Its the user who should decides if the app has benefit for him.
02-14-2013 10:27 AM
02-14-2013 10:32 AM
02-14-2013 10:50 AM
So you're suggesting, that a BFBB should not be considered unless it has X downloads, Y star ratings from at least Z users (with less then T denied reviews)? Or if that is not what you are saying, it might be.
This would remove the "benefit" issue in some way and let the market decide its usefulness. Letting the app be on the market first for a bit of time would give a broader review base for BFBB reviewers to consider.
However, the app would still need the other criteria for BFBB consideration (flow, UX, UI, services, etc.).
John, not quite. I would never suggest something so absolute as "should not be considered" until X.
I do think, however, that a more holistic approach is reasonable, and could include concrete evidence from hard empirical data along with the purely subjective "reviewer's gut feeling".
For example, with White Noise, I know that many people have never heard of white noise, or tinnitus, and do not suffer from problems sleeping. If I hit a reviewer like that, they'll look at it and so "No, silly little app that performs a simple single function" and reject it (as happened).
If I hit a reviewer who happens to need such a thing, they may say "Oh, nice. This looks like a well-done, serious tool for helping one sleep." and approve it.
I think there's room for both subjectivity and objectivity, together... if an app is brand new, and the reviewer perceives no real benefit, they can reject it. If the developer appeals with justification for the need for the app, through a defined process, they can take a second look, and examine evidence including user reviews, downloads to date, and possibly additional supporting material from the developer.
I'm not saying White Noise is a clear win, but I would say that there's substantially evidence that it provides a very real user benefit.
(The sad thing in my case is that it wasn't rejected for lack of user benefit, but because of the catch-all "simple single function" clause. I think that's plain silly, considering that the same clause was always in the rules even for the free PlayBook offer, and yet this app was approved two years ago under that program. It's better (and less simple) than it was back then too!)