I get that Cromite is a one person project and the uazo generally does a good job, but in last couple of months Cromite is usually weeks behind Chrome stable. Would it make sense to add a small note on the recommendation page about this? just a heads up that updates may occasionally lag behind.
If that’s the case PG should consider removing it as a recommendation as it would not meet the minimum requirement to receive engine updates from upstream releases quickly.
The browser section for both desktop and android do not follow the set requirements
Not sure how you want me to respond to that but I will say I am consistent on this issue. All offending reccomendations should be removed in all catagories.
Just wanted to add more context that both desktop and android are not following the requirements. Wasn’t meant to undermine what you wrote.
Yeah that makes sense. The enforcement of criteria on this site can be extremely frustrating at times.
I consider Cromite the weakest PG browser recommendation, and still personally rank it lower than a few other browsers that havent earned a PG listing.
Cromite has other issues as well. They added some questionable security/privacy blobs, Eyeo filtering engine comes to mind
In light of this additional update-lag issue (on which I am taking OP at their word, have not verified on my own), I wouldnt be disappointed to see it altogether removed
Yeah, looking at the release cycle again, things seem to have slowed down around the start of March. No updates at all during Chrome v146, and the next release jumped straight to v147 (early April). We’re now almost a month past that, and Chrome has shipped v148. Honestly, at this point Cromite should probably just be removed from the recommendations.
If the dev is unable to keep up, we should be considering delisting it. I will probably sent the dev a quick message for comment and see if there are expected improvements on the horizon. This situation does show again how we cannot just add any browser, even if have had a good update schedule for a few months.
No, not for the moment.
I’m just VERY busy with work (and little desire to use the computer at night), but I’m making progress with the port to 148.
Please bear with me for a moment, I think it will stay that way until late September (the deadline for the big project).Oh, and please use the discussions for these matters.
Well, now that came around typing out my message in the Cromite removal thread, it got resolved/closed. 
Here’s the text from before I saw the removal, and I did not want to just delete my post.
(With some points about enforcing the rules.)
-
While I can’t judge on the maximum time – I don’t know enough about the time it takes to adapt the code or how endangered you are after 3 days [was mentioned in the removal thread] –, I fully stand behind a strict enforcement of the established rules.
I am very grateful for the work a single individual poured into Cromite, but if it does not match the rules, something has to be done.
Wasn’t there recommendation pages where apps and services were placed which did not meet certain criteria?
Cromite could be placed there, and each app/service could have a headline like “Does not meet the strict update period:”. Each person then could evaluate if that’s something they could live with.
Going on about fixing the system
Then there could be an appeal system, where a developer could contact the team for approval (not just voting) for meeting the stricter rules.
For failing these rules a strike system could be applied, with a small grace period before taken off the recommendations. Failing multiple times would lose the recommended status for a while until a redemption period is reached or the app/service is voted for again.
I mean, being listed on PrivacyGuides loses meaning if basic criteria are not met and rules are not strictly enforced.
People will look briefly at the recommendations and see that Cromite (with a weeks old version) is just as good a choice as Brave.