Death

Support requests being private is not that common and are usually done for the sake of concealing sensitive information. Reporting exploits, sharing customer/purchase data, etc. The option needs to be there for when you need it.

Yeah, sorry, I don't know how else to help you. You're intentionally skimming over all of the information I've provided, trying to find anything and everything to become a victim here. Your review is not going to be approved because the review consists of complaints/suggestions/support issues that were not reported. Either follow the appropriate steps or stop leaving reviews.

Your latest review: Default attire (scientists instead of traditional "zombies") can be confusing or immersion-breaking. - Not mentioned in the support request. The default loadout (double-barrel shotgun) can lead to player frustration and rage quits. - Not mentioned in the support request. Everything else seems to be addressed by the author: https://codefling.com/files/support/16814-zombies-not-spawning/ As you've said yourself, you've had other reviews approved with no issue, which means it's not a problem with our process but rather the context of your review. Just like the one above, you're going after it for suggestions and issues you never brought to the attention of the author. The ones you did submit a support request for seem to be resolved. This is not how you communicate suggestions and is likely why your previous review was rejected.

There’s no contradiction here. Your analogy isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, and I pointed that out in case the suggestion was for an expected feature (e.g., a kill feed showing deaths from drowning), which aligns with your fridge light analogy since both are reasonable expectations based on the product’s nature. Reviews are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and in your example, a review could be justified. However, that doesn’t mean all reviews based on suggestions should be approved. Your argument is a bit misleading. This policy has been in place since the start and was supported by a community vote. While your feedback is certainly valid, it's worth noting that your stance is in the minority. Even the reviews you've just recently posted highlight issues and suggestions you made no effort to create a support request for or discuss in the appropriate channels. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.

So, according to your reasoning, instead of notifying the author through the proper channels and giving them a chance to address the issue, you should just post an extensive review that took more effort than submitting a simple support request? Your claim that this is misleading to customers is completely unfounded. The support tab is one of the primary places users check to see if a file has active support. It absolutely is. You're taking advantage of them by putting pressure on the rating of their file to get what you want. That's abuse. Instead, you should use the discussion tab (or even submit a support request) to propose new features. If your suggestions are declined, so be it. Those features were never guaranteed to you in the first place. A light on the door is generally an expected feature of a fridge and would constitute a design flaw or a shortcoming for it. I completely understand a review in this case, but that's just it. It's not the case. You can't make this comparison to a plugin when you want a feature that was never promised. If it's a kill feed plugin that doesn't show deaths from drowning then sure, I could see a valid review for that. It's all based on context, which is why we moderate reviews. Reviews should be used to assess products based on what they promise and deliver. Criticizing a product for lacking features it never advertised shifts the purpose of reviews away from objective evaluation and toward personal preferences, which can be misleading to other potential users. If users want to suggest new features or highlight areas for improvement, the appropriate way to do so is through feedback channels like support or discussion tabs. This maintains fairness and constructive dialogue, supporting both creators and users without distorting the product's reputation.

As usual, all of our policies are available in the footer. https://codefling.com/legal

@dustyhansen That's not at all how it works. If you submit a review for ANY rating that relates to a support issue for which you haven't created a support request for, then it won't get approved until you do, and there's a reasonable amount of time for the author to correct it beforehand. There is an exception, and that's when an issue is widely reported, and no resolution by the author has been made. The reason for this, as stated above, is to produce a positive outcome for the customer. A negative review is not going to resolve your issue, but leveraging your review for a positive outcome for not only you but other users is. It's also to protect authors from users who leave reviews about support issues but never amend them once the issue is fixed. This is the case most of the time and is demotivating. Also, reviews about features that are not advertised or even promised should not happen. I get in your head that it's motivation for the author to add those features, but at that point, you're forcing them to do so for the sake of amending your review. That's absolutely abusive and is exactly why they wouldn't get approved.

That's not possible. Discord does not have any guild information associated with their invite URL. That's all internal. We could use the API to get this data but the API requires the guild ID and the invite URL does not contain this.

Change the end of the URL to =1 instead of =0

Double click the image in the editor to change its size.

Please point out these "generic" 5 star reviews. The majority of reviews we receive are 5 stars so that's why you'll almost always see 5 star reviews on the homepage. I'm not sure why your review hasn't been approved yet but @Mals can assist you with that.

I pinged the author in your support request and will do it here to ensure it gets attention. @Iftebinjan

@Iftebinjan

Could you provide the link to the file you're referring to?

For context:

Please have a look at our How to Submit a File guide to get started.

This was my bad. I had removed the only way for our moderators to see pending reviews while I was working on a new portal. It should be approved now or, at the very least, received a message from the team.

The author is no longer active so I've gone ahead and issued a refund into account credit.

The author is no longer active. I've gone ahead and issued a refund into account credit.

@Cobalt Studios

@Cobalt Studios

@Cobalt Studios

@Cobalt Studios

Has been in the works for a few months. Just great timing I suppose

@Raul-Sorin Sorban