[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 21:01:20 UTC 2012


I like that ... I just felt the use of REQUIRED in that guideline comes
across as too harsh and bordering on aesthetic design choices.


Cais.


On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> How about:
>
> Since the purpose of Themes is to define the presentation of user content,
> Themes must not be used to define the generation of user content, or to
> define Theme-independent site options or functionality.
>
>
> Since this is a top-level Guideline, I agree that we should make it as
> legible as possible. :)
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> A little re-wording suggestion:
>>
>>
>> "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. "
>>
>> ... to:
>>
>> "Themes are used to present content. They must not be used to define the
>> generation of the site's content. They should also not be used to define
>> Theme-independent site options or functionality."
>>
>> I consider this more a soft-sell approach; and as noted this is something
>> that has been addressed for quite some time but simply not put into the
>> guidelines.
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20120308/18069b43/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list