When will my plugin be approved?

[cooing]

Other plugins were approved within a few hours, but I submitted mine on Tuesday and it’s still not approved. When can I expect it to be approved?

[whatsyolo]

The upload date gets changed to the date it was approved so it only appears to have been approved the same day.  I uploaded one on May 4th and still waiting. 

[SiCkNeSs]

Honestly its usually about 4 ish weeks unless you get lucky

[cooing]

OMG….

It’s hard to believe the plugin review process could take up to a month… it’s honestly quite discouraging.

Is there any way to get it reviewed more quickly?

[SiCkNeSs]

15 minutes ago, cooing said:

OMG….

It’s hard to believe the plugin review process could take up to a month… it’s honestly quite discouraging.

Is there any way to get it reviewed more quickly?

gotta remember that there are only a few curators, and lots of file submissions. so it can take a while to go though and weed out the AI slop etc

[cooing]

12 minutes ago, SiCkNeSs said:

gotta remember that there are only a few curators, and lots of file submissions. so it can take a while to go though and weed out the AI slop etc

 

Thank you for reply but

This isn't just an excuse — it's a clear failure of responsibility.

Regardless of the internal process,

taking nearly a month to review a plugin is utterly unacceptable in this day and age.

It signals negligence in maintaining the platform and a lack of regard for developer support.

[Death]

1 hour ago, cooing said:

Thank you for reply but

This isn't just an excuse — it's a clear failure of responsibility.

Regardless of the internal process,

taking nearly a month to review a plugin is utterly unacceptable in this day and age.

It signals negligence in maintaining the platform and a lack of regard for developer support.

What? We get hundreds of submissions a week and have paid curators reviewing daily. While 4 weeks is a bit exaggerated it's not uncommon for it to take a couple of weeks due to the sheer volume. We take on as many curators as we can. Not sure how this is negligence?

Based on your responses I had a hunch you may have used AI and I was not surprised to see your entire file is AI-generated. Ironically, it's submissions like yours that cause these long review times. I will keep the file in queue to be properly reviewed but I can tell right away it likely won't be accepted due to it being written by AI.

[cooing]

I’d like to respond to your reply.

In today's development environment, it's practically unheard of for developers to build everything completely by hand without any assistance from tools — including AI. Utilizing AI does not invalidate the originality or quality of a submission. In fact, leveraging available tools is an industry standard and part of working efficiently and professionally.

While I did use AI as a support tool for parts of my code, the overall architecture, logic, integration, and refinement were all done by me. The plugin reflects my intent, decisions, and manual effort — not a copy-paste output. I'm genuinely unsure what criteria you're using to conclude that it was "entirely AI-generated," but if this is based on personal interpretation rather than objective analysis, I believe that's a serious concern.

Dismissing a submission simply due to suspected AI involvement, regardless of its actual merit, raises important questions about fairness and modern development practices.

[Death]

15 hours ago, cooing said:

I’d like to respond to your reply.

In today's development environment, it's practically unheard of for developers to build everything completely by hand without any assistance from tools — including AI. Utilizing AI does not invalidate the originality or quality of a submission. In fact, leveraging available tools is an industry standard and part of working efficiently and professionally.

While I did use AI as a support tool for parts of my code, the overall architecture, logic, integration, and refinement were all done by me. The plugin reflects my intent, decisions, and manual effort — not a copy-paste output. I'm genuinely unsure what criteria you're using to conclude that it was "entirely AI-generated," but if this is based on personal interpretation rather than objective analysis, I believe that's a serious concern.

Dismissing a submission simply due to suspected AI involvement, regardless of its actual merit, raises important questions about fairness and modern development practices.

The majority of the code is AI, much like your responses here. AI is indeed a useful tool, but you're not using it to assist you in the process, you're using it to completely replace it. I'm almost certain you have no idea what the code does outside of what you asked AI to make you. More than happy to jump in a voice chat over Discord if you disagree.

[Raul-Sorin Sorban]

15 hours ago, cooing said:

I’d like to respond to your reply.

In today's development environment, it's practically unheard of for developers to build everything completely by hand without any assistance from tools — including AI. Utilizing AI does not invalidate the originality or quality of a submission. In fact, leveraging available tools is an industry standard and part of working efficiently and professionally.

While I did use AI as a support tool for parts of my code, the overall architecture, logic, integration, and refinement were all done by me. The plugin reflects my intent, decisions, and manual effort — not a copy-paste output. I'm genuinely unsure what criteria you're using to conclude that it was "entirely AI-generated," but if this is based on personal interpretation rather than objective analysis, I believe that's a serious concern.

Dismissing a submission simply due to suspected AI involvement, regardless of its actual merit, raises important questions about fairness and modern development practices.

If you plan on having a debate about the usage of the AI and the threshold of what you consider being acceptable, let's start with you not using AI for your responses in this thread.