Clarify requirement "User readiness" w.r.t used domains

stacks-archive / app-mining

For App Mining landing page development and App Mining operations.

https://app.co/mining

MIT License

49 stars 16 forks source link

Clarify requirement "User readiness" w.r.t used domains #167

Open friedger opened 4 years ago

friedger commented 4 years ago

An app that submits an app for app mining using a different (sub)domain than the domain used to promote the brand of the app should be rejected as not "user-ready".

Example: SpringRole submitted blockstack.springrole.com, however, springrole.com is a clone of blockstack.springrole.com and springrole.com is used in promoting the app, e.g. springroleinc on twitter links to springrole.com. Furthermore, Awario score and PH score is based on springrole.com, not blockstack.springrole.com.

stackatron commented 4 years ago

@friedger I agree with the spirit of this. Think you're proposing that subdomains should not be used to get around App Mining rules and/or reviewers. Can you please retitle this and also expand a bit on what exact rules you want and which reviewer would enforce this? Or how we should operationalize this test?

friedger commented 4 years ago

@jeffdomke It is not limited to subdomains, it should also apply to example-blockstack.com etc.

Rule to be added to the documentation: The app/product's main url must be the same as the url submitted to the app mining program. Main url means the url that is used in communications and marketing about the product by the owner. Rewards are not paid out if this is not the case because the submitted app url is not user-ready.

Blockstack PBC should check on acceptance of an app that the submitted urls is the url used to promote the app in general
Each app reviewer should verify that the submitted url is the url they are reviewing.
Each auditor during the auditing period should verify that Blockstack PBC checked for the above rule.

friedger commented 4 years ago

It is at the discretion of Blockstack PBC to decided finally whether the rule is satisfied or not.

stackatron commented 4 years ago

That sounds like the kind of thing NIL should test, correct?

friedger commented 4 years ago

Most important is that it is stated clearly in the docs

Jeff Domke notifications@github.com schrieb am Do., 31. Okt. 2019, 17:54:

That sounds like the kind of thing NIL should test, correct?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/blockstack/app-mining/issues/167?email_source=notifications&email_token=AALBYWLLM2EMFTYHTWODCPLQRMEUBA5CNFSM4JBP7RUKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOECYPVHY#issuecomment-548469407, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALBYWI4XPEDKP4SBHUEGQLQRMEUBANCNFSM4JBP7RUA .

friedger commented 4 years ago

That sounds like the kind of thing NIL should test, correct?

For NIL, there is issue #147 that relates to this one.