[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Chip Bennett
chip at chipbennett.net
Thu Mar 8 14:22:48 UTC 2012
I have "roughed in" this change. Please make comments so that we can
improve it as necessary:
http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Guidelines
Related changes:
1. In order to avoid confusion between the "Presentation vs Functionality"
guidelines and the "Theme Functionality" guidelines, I changed the "Theme
Functionality" terminology to "Theme Features", which is the same
terminology used throughout the Codex to refer to Nav Menus, etc.
2. Because it might fit better there, I moved the Favicon guidelines from
"Including other Resources" to "Presentation vs Content". The favicon is
more of a matter of site *identity*, but it falls into the same category of
things that shouldn't change when the Theme changes.
I think this will be a positive addition to the Guidelines. We have been
operating somewhat under this principle all along, but never actually put
it into the Guidelines. Having it there will allow us to encourage more and
more best practices, such as proper filtering of wp_title() for output of
the HTML document title.
Chip
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> I think if we're going to call it out explicitly, then it needs to be a
> REQUIREMENT; otherwise, we can simply let the Guidelines handle it
> implicitly, under the existing guidelines regarding proper implementation
> of features.
>
> Note: putting rel="canonical" in a Theme *breaks* Plugin functionality AND
> core functionality.
>
> My only issue is the granularity of adding a new Guideline. Such an
> approach does not scale well (see also: the US Code of Federal
> Regulations). I would recommend that we put the underlying *principle* in
> the Guidelines, rather than explicitly state every little thing that falls
> under that principle. So, if we are going to add to the Guidelines, I
> propose that we add wording such as the following:
>
> *Presentation Vs. Functionality*
> *Themes are required to define the presentation of user content, and must
> not be used to define the generation of user content, or to define
> Theme-independent site options or functionality.*
>
>
> This wording could probably use improvement, but it covers a lot of bases,
> including rel="canonical", and anything else that would be considered as
> "Plugin territory".
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Since this is such an easily identifiable bit of code (rel="canonical")
>> are we talking a REQUIREMENT that it not be used, if that is the case I'm
>> sure it can be dropped into the uploader/Theme-Check to manage ...
>> otherwise I would say putting it into the guidelines as a RECOMMENDATION
>> not to use under the section @Justin suggested, due to its potential impact
>> on SEO, would be more appropriate.
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's definitely safe to say that rel="canonical" should be done via
>>> plugins, if we're all in agreement let's put that into Theme Review?
>>>
>>> Emil
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Joost de Valk <joost at yoast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. That effectively blocks all custom taxonomies from indexation. I
>>>> think that's plugin territory :-)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Joost
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On 7 mrt. 2012, at 04:09, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I forget where I picked this nugget up but it's been in my header for
>>>> ages:
>>>> >
>>>> > if((is_single() || is_category() || is_page() || is_home()) &&
>>>> > (!is_paged())){
>>>> > ?>
>>>> > <!-- ok google, index me! -->
>>>> > <?php
>>>> > }else{
>>>> > ?>
>>>> > <!-- google, please ignore - thanks! -->
>>>> > <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow">
>>>> > <?php
>>>> > }
>>>> >
>>>> > Assuming it goes under the same rubric, no?
>>>> >
>>>> > Also, if we still have Joost's ear: do you see any SEO impact in
>>>> > having that functionality in the head?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at bertolli.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> Yes, you guys are right... I can't think of any good reason for a
>>>> theme
>>>> >> to use this.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 03/06/2012 05:42 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>>> >>> Let me ask a different way: what does rel=canonical or rel=nofollow
>>>> have
>>>> >>> to do with *presentation* of content?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Let me ask yet another way: what is the potential impact of changing
>>>> >>> Themes, if rel=canonical or rel=nofollow are defined *by the Theme*?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Chip
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Angelo Bertolli <
>>>> angelo at bertolli.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:angelo at bertolli.org>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So are theme developers also restricted from using nofollow?
>>>> It is
>>>> >>> functional.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I don't think theme developers should be restricted from using
>>>> >>> rel="canonical" just because some of them may use it wrong, or
>>>> because
>>>> >>> Google treats it a certain way for search results.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 03/06/2012 05:24 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>>> >>> > The criterion for me is Presentational vs Functinoal. I think
>>>> that
>>>> >>> > rel=canonical clearly falls under "Functional", and therefore
>>>> is Plugin
>>>> >>> > territory.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Chip
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com
>>>> >>> <mailto:emil at themeid.com>
>>>> >>> > <mailto:emil at themeid.com <mailto:emil at themeid.com>>> wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > I was reading from my phone....
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > I agree that Themes should not mess with rel="canonical"
>>>> at all.
>>>> >>> > Majority people are devs not SEO consultants. Required
>>>> not to
>>>> >>> use is
>>>> >>> > what I believe we should do.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > On Mar 6, 2012 4:17 PM, "Joost de Valk" <joost at yoast.com
>>>> >>> <mailto:joost at yoast.com>
>>>> >>> > <mailto:joost at yoast.com <mailto:joost at yoast.com>>> wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > It has nothing to do with using my plugin or not. It's
>>>> >>> something
>>>> >>> > even my plugin can't fix :-)
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Best,
>>>> >>> > Joost
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > On 6 mrt. 2012, at 23:14, Emil Uzelac <
>>>> emil at themeid.com
>>>> >>> <mailto:emil at themeid.com>
>>>> >>> > <mailto:emil at themeid.com <mailto:emil at themeid.com>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >> If they do not use your plugin would this hurt the
>>>> SEO?
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> On Mar 6, 2012 3:47 PM, "Joost de Valk" <
>>>> joost at yoast.com
>>>> >>> <mailto:joost at yoast.com>
>>>> >>> >> <mailto:joost at yoast.com <mailto:joost at yoast.com>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> Hi all,
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> tldr version: I would like a guideline that
>>>> tells theme
>>>> >>> >> developers to /not/ include a rel=canonical link
>>>> in their
>>>> >>> >> theme as it hurts people more than it helps in a
>>>> lot
>>>> >>> of cases.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> long version:
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> As some of you probably know, I do a lot of SEO
>>>> >>> >> consultancy. Some of it is related to people who
>>>> have
>>>> >>> >> suddenly lost all their rankings and want me to
>>>> help fix
>>>> >>> >> it for them. Today I helped out a blogger,
>>>> unpaid because
>>>> >>> >> I just liked his blog as it was about children
>>>> with Down
>>>> >>> >> Syndrome.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> He had recently switched themes /and /started
>>>> using my
>>>> >>> >> WordPress SEO plugin, and of course he was
>>>> blaming my
>>>> >>> >> plugin for his sudden loss of rankings. What I
>>>> found out
>>>> >>> >> though, was that the theme had the following
>>>> rel=canonical
>>>> >>> >> link in the header.php:
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo
>>>> home_url(); ?>" />
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> above the call to wp_head. This was causing each
>>>> >>> >> individual post to have a canonical point back
>>>> to the
>>>> >>> >> homepage. Now you should know that Google
>>>> especially sees
>>>> >>> >> a canonical as somewhat of a "soft 301
>>>> redirect". It
>>>> >>> >> basically takes a page that has a canonical
>>>> pointing
>>>> >>> >> elsewhere out of the rankings. The effect is
>>>> quite
>>>> >>> dramatic.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> This was a premium theme, whose authors I have
>>>> since
>>>> >>> >> emailed. It got me thinking though: is this in
>>>> the WP.org
>>>> >>> >> <http://WP.org> guidelines? Apparently, it's
>>>> not.
>>>> >>> >> WordPress itself adds a rel="canonical" through
>>>> wp_head on
>>>> >>> >> single pages, and there's a patch in Trac to add
>>>> it on
>>>> >>> >> more pages. There are several themes in the
>>>> repository
>>>> >>> >> though that have absolutely 100% wrong canonical
>>>> links in
>>>> >>> >> their header.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> This one:
>>>> http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/digu is an
>>>> >>> >> example. It's not popular and hasn't been
>>>> updated in ages
>>>> >>> >> so I wouldn't normally care too much, but I
>>>> wanted to use
>>>> >>> >> it as an example. It has the following code:
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> <?php if(is_single()){ ?><link rel="canonical"
>>>> href="<?php
>>>> >>> >> echo get_permalink($post->ID),"\n";?>" /><?php
>>>> }?>
>>>> >>> >> <?php if(is_home() || is_tag() || is_category()
>>>> ||
>>>> >>> >> is_month() || is_year()){ ?>
>>>> >>> >> <link rel="canonical" href="<?php
>>>> bloginfo('url');?>"
>>>> >>> >> /><?php echo "\n"; }?>
>>>> >>> >> …. snip ….
>>>> >>> >> <?php } ?>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> Using that theme on a live site could kill your
>>>> rankings
>>>> >>> >> instantly, as it would make all category
>>>> listings etc have
>>>> >>> >> canonicals linking back to the homepage. In most
>>>> cases
>>>> >>> >> this would prevent Google from spidering the
>>>> links to the
>>>> >>> >> posts on those pages.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> Now some themes, like Thematic and Hybrid, have
>>>> somewhat
>>>> >>> >> more sensible canonical functions, which makes
>>>> this a hard
>>>> >>> >> discussion. I would vote to call it plugin
>>>> territory
>>>> >>> >> though and keep it out of themes completely.
>>>> Would love to
>>>> >>> >> hear your opinions.
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> Best
>>>> >>> >> Joost
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> >> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> >> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>>
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> > <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> > <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> >> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > -Doug
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120308/51ac556f/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list