I’ll give it a shot and let you know how it went. By the way, the watch face that was giving me such grief was finally passed?? I really don’t know why?
2 Likes
@MergeLabs i was surprised on last week about two of my watch faces got rejected due to the words “wear OS” not mentioned in description. Later i added and got approved.
And another case, few months back, this words “wear OS” i was mentioned on watch face name and that time it was rejected due to the reason why should i mention wear OS on watch face name. later i deleted and approved.
1 Like
It strikes me the only thing You guys can Do is to start Practicing VOODOO . Real Talent should be Fostered by the System .
.
.
1 Like
I got a rejection because I used wear OS, not Wear OS. I can live with that though because at least they tell you what’s wrong. It’s these rejections with no real explanation that drive me nuts. Oh by the way, the watch face that I just couldn’t get approved (rejected 3x) and was the reason for this thread?..Yeah, approved finally.
2 Likes
Oh Congratulations @MergeLabs . What a Trial . Can you post a Link Please . I would love to see you Created .
I sent it to you already…Just for the masses stuff - nothing creative this time, hehe
1 Like
Ah Ok . I never think that of any of your work . I know how much you put in . Even the Sync Whore was a Masterpiece .
1 Like
@MergeLabs I’ve got the same rejection reason as you did. How did you manage to resolve it? Downgraded WFS version or did some changes to the watch face and re-uploaded it to Google Play?
I am not sure really, just wasting my time throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks because as you know, the rejection reason is SUPER NOT HELPFUL. I am basically trying to reduce any where that I am using my own code because I upgraded to WFS 1.6.9 from 1.5.7 and I notice some things that required coding before no longer do.
For example using Bitmap fonts for digital time and splitting up the elements to code HH:MM:SS individually. Now in 1.6.9, it’s a simple feature that you can choose in add component/digital time/variable.
In my last face that just kept getting rejected I swapped out my old 1.5.9 method and used the 1.6.9 feature and the watch got passed. However, this is most likely not the reason and I’ll never know because I still have my own “code” for other elements on that watch face (eg. step goal %, calories, KM/MI masking) which passed THIS TIME.
Aside from that, I am making a “test” face and loading up ll the things/features that I add to any of my watches one by one and seeing if they pass or not. It’s a complete pain in the ass and I have to wait for each stage to get passed and go into production.
It unfortunate but I am preparing myself to either get a watch face I make passed super smoothly or SUPER NOT. There’s no middle ground and definitely no support. Just gotta roll the dice and hope it goes well. I wonder if it’s the same reviewer we have? Did you write an appeal?
1 Like
Actually, two of my watch faces got rejected because of this reason with no proper explanation. I did test them before and everything was working just fine, so no clue what could be wrong… I submitted appeals for both of them. Kind of hesitant to release any more new watch faces until I understand what is going on…
1 Like
Yup. I am done for a bit too.
1 Like