[theme-reviewers] Pagelines Themes: Theme URI

[Edward Caissie]

Line 12 in my editor: Author URI: http://www.pagelines.com
Thus the Author URI and the footer credit link (i.e.: the leaf image in the
footer) are the same.

I understand the issues you are having with the theme and the Theme URI, and
I have read your comments regarding the Theme URL and credit link but you
are extending the current Theme Review guidelines well beyond what is
currently written. If we are to adopt the additional criteria you have
written we cannot "not-approve" this theme based on it.

We can go forward with the criteria, we can ask the author to correct this
issue as soon as possible as the current URI link will not be accepted in
the future. It is fundamentally important for us to not appear to make up
the rules as we go which is how this could easily be contrued.

This is an interpretation of the Theme URI usage and one that should be
clarified, I'm fine with wording to the effect of your comment being used to
add/update the Theme Review page, but I am not fine with a not-approve
resolution solely based on it.

... or in other words, as much as I agree with your comment and reasoning we
have nothing that clearly supports it beyond the discussions in this thread.
We have set the Theme Review page(s) in place so all will be able to see and
understand what is required and with that we have also set them as the Theme
Review Team's guideline for review commentary.

A comment to the effect "the Theme URI is not specific enough" would better
suit the current written guidelines, unfortunately we cannot modify our
comments ...

In this case, and as I see it all similar instances should be addressed on a
case-by-case scenario, the Theme URI issue should be addressed but if it is
the only issue (again, in this case) then I would likely advise the author
it needs to be corrected with the next update in the very near future and
approve it. IF there are any other issues, then this Theme URI issue must be
corrected with the next update or it will be resolved to "not-approved".


Cais.



On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> This is the link I see:
>> http://www.pagelines.com/free-themes/WhiteHouse.zip
>>
>> Which is neither here nor there, the point being is they are still
>> offering a free version of the theme is all I am writing.
>>
>> ... and I agree with Otto on this, its a very fine line we are walking.
>>
>> Although similar, the "pro" version does seem to offer several
>> enhancements with features and functions, but the author is not using the
>> Theme URI as their credit link which IMO means it should be addressed but
>> not necessarily in the same manner as credit links.
>
>
>> Let's go to the Theme Review page:
>> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Credit_links which states:
>>
>>    - Theme URI, if used, is *required* to link to a page specifically
>>    related to the Theme.
>>    - Themes are *recommended* to provide at least one of these two links,
>>    in order to ensure Theme users have a point of contact for the Theme
>>    developer.
>>
>> So unless you want to split hairs over the dis-similarities of the Pro
>> version versus the Free version what part of the above are they not meeting?
>>
>
> There are two issues, as commented in the ticket:
>
> 1) The Theme URI is inaccurate
> 2) The footer credit link is neither Theme URI, nor Author URI. (The Theme
> actually fails to define Author URI.)
>
>
>>
>> Call me argumentative today, but I am just not seeing what's egregiously
>> wrong with the link they are using ... it's a little dark on the greyscale,
>> but if we say no to this author, then lets remember to say no to all the
>> authors that link to a site selling their "pro", "enhanced", "premiuim",
>> etc. version of their themes.
>
>
> I always check Theme URI and Author URI (the former being scrutinized more
> than the latter). I'd point out the same thing for any other Theme that I
> come across.
>
> Besides, the issue isn't that the Theme Developer is selling a "pro"
> version of the Theme. That's perfectly acceptable (although, a breakdown of
> the differences between "free" and "pro" would be nice in such
> circumstances, to ensure that the "free" version isn't crippleware).
>
> I suppose I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly what it is that
> is bothering me about this circumstance - though, it revolves *entirely*
> around the use of Theme URI. If Theme URI didn't point to the "pro" version
> of the Theme (e.g. if it pointed to a landing page for the free version - or
> if it was left undefined entirely), I wouldn't have any issue with it, per
> se.
>
>
>> This, of course, mean recognizing author's who have themes currently
>> available for use on WPCOM!
>>
>> And we have little (read: no) control or influence over what happens on
> WPCOM.
>
> Chip
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101006/57eab7d2/attachment-0001.htm>