NotesMaking Tools

The Chrome Web Store Rejected My Extension for Keyword Spam

The rejection was about the store listing, not the code or the permissions. Naming a dozen supported services felt like scope to me, but the spam FAQ says a description should not name more than five sites or brands. What I cut, where the list went, and what the official pages actually say.

Making Tools Build Note

Written by k-wada (Legacy Tools)

この記事を日本語で読む

On this page
  1. I had listed every service it works with
  2. What the published guidance actually says
  3. Say what the tool does before naming where it runs
  4. More detail: the rewritten section, and the limits of this account
    1. Where the list went
    2. What this account does not cover
  5. References
Minimal illustration of small blocks crowded together on the left, thinning out toward the right until only three remain, evenly spaced in open white space

I submitted an extension to the Chrome Web Store and it came back rejected for keyword spam. What triggered it was not the code or the permissions, but a description I had written to make the supported services clear. The spam FAQ says not to name more than five sites or brands in a description, and my listing was well past that.

I had listed every service it works with

The listing was for Safe Privacy Mask, an extension that masks strings that look like personal information before you paste them into an AI chat.

To show where it could be used, the description named a dozen or so services: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot and the rest. That was not an attempt to rank for anything. It seemed more helpful to let someone check whether their own service was covered before installing.

But what a reader receives is the list itself, not the reason it exists. A dozen product names in a row are indistinguishable, from the outside, from keywords placed there for search.

What the published guidance actually says

After the rejection I read the public documentation.

The Spam policy FAQ says that when you list supported websites or brands in a description you should not name more than five, and that a longer list belongs in a link or embedded in one of the extension's promotional screenshots.

On repetition, it says it is best to keep a specific keyword under five instances, while adding that more than five is still allowed if the use is considered appropriate and relevant. The count is not the test; unnatural repetition is.

The troubleshooting page is more direct. Its example of this violation is including a long list of the different sites an extension works on in the metadata — which is exactly what I had done. The same page notes that keyword stuffing corresponds to the notification ID Yellow Argon.

Say what the tool does before naming where it runs

So I dropped the enumeration. Instead of covering more services, the description now leads with:

  • what the extension does
  • when you would reach for it
  • how it handles data and permissions

Only a couple of representative names stayed, and the full list moved into the extension's own settings page (the rewritten passage is in the notes below).

I did hesitate. Remove the names and it gets harder for someone to tell whether their own service is covered.

I resubmitted with the rewritten listing and it went through. Which of the changes actually mattered, I have no way of knowing from my side.

What I took from it is that naming more services and explaining the tool clearly are not the same thing. Say what the tool is for first, then add only what a reader needs — that reads better for both the person installing it and the person reviewing it.

More detail: the rewritten section, and the limits of this account

Where the list went

The supported-sites section ended up as this:

After installation, it works out of the box on major AI chat services. You can check the list of supported services on the extension's settings page.

Moving the list into the settings screen was not about hiding it. Supported sites change, and a list that lives inside the extension stays accurate in a way that store copy does not. That turned out to be the better home for it, which I only noticed after the rewrite.

What this account does not cover

  • This is one submission of Safe Privacy Mask. The stated reason was keyword spam, but I no longer have the rejection date or the version it applied to, and I am not quoting the notice itself
  • Google did not explain why the resubmission was accepted. I cannot point to the change that made the difference
  • It does not show how every Chrome Web Store review is decided
  • The policies change. The numbers here are what the pages below said when I re-read them on 2026-09-11; check the current official pages when you submit

References

All three were read on 2026-09-11.

Tags: Chrome Web Store・store listing・review process