[theme-reviewers] Why the bias?

[Chip Bennett]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Satish Gandham <satish.iitg at gmail.com>wrote:

> You can use this java script to make sure that images doesn't overflow the
> content width.
>
> Why resort to javascript when WordPress itself (and a simple CSS
definition) does the job just as well?


> Now if we can stop discussion on $content_width, and get back to my
> question.


With all due respect: while your thread did get hijacked, yours is not the
world's most important issue. While it was off-topic from your original
email, the discussion of how to handle over-sized images is helpful to
many.

>
> *I'm not sure i'm understanding why you're having a 3 week waiting time,
> don't you have an already approved status on it?*
>
>
> My theme never got place in previously approved themes queue, all my
> updates go to previously reviewed themes.


I assure you, your Themes have not had any special dispensation, positive or
negative. The review priority queues are determined automatically, according
to what's in Trac. If the Theme does not have a previous ticket in Trac
(based on keyword theme-$theme-slug), then it goes in Priority #3 (New
Themes). If the Theme has previous tickets, and the most recent ticket has a
resolution of "approved", then it goes in Priority #1 (Previously Approved
Themes). Otherwise, if the Theme has previous tickets, and the most recent
ticket has a resolution of "not-approved", then it goes in Priority #2
(Previously Reviewed Themes).

We do NOT adjust these queues manually. There is NO bias in establishing the
review priority queues.

>
> *As long it's just like 1 or 2 minor things such as that.   That way the
> author gets their theme on the repo and fixes the code utilized on the next
> update and knows about it.
> *
>
> *I'm sure you'll agree that - this method of thinking will help things out
> quite a bit without rejecting for just a single little thing.   Which of
> course is all dependent on the reviewer doing the review if they wish to do
> it or not.*
>
> I agree, but I'm trying to find out why I don't get such exceptions.
>
> *If you see my last ticket,*
>
> It was rejected for some simple issues on the backed, and for a word
> overflowing , a 33 letter word over flowing.
> Who is gonna use a 33 letter word?
>
> While I appreciate the reviewer taking such time to do a through review of
> the theme and posting the screen shots.
> It's clear that, the review was soo deep, just to find reasons to reject
> the theme.
> https://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/2982#comment:2
>
> Here is the screen shot of platform theme, on a new installation of
> WordPress after importing the test data.
>
> http://d.pr/hyYJ
>
> 1.It uses pagelines logo in the header, while it should show the blog name
> and blog title.
> 2.Text on default installation is unreadable.
> 3. Screenshot is not close to the default installation..
>
> I checked the previous tickets on the theme, there was never a mention of
> the screenshot, and on my theme I was repeatedly asked to change the
> screenshot.
>
> Are you still going to say that there is no bias?
>

Yes; there is no bias. What you perceive to be bias is better described as
us being human. We can and do make mistakes, and we can and do review Themes
differently - not because we are biased for against a particular Theme or
developer, but rather because we, as humans, are merely imperfect.

Part of the risk with our approach to Previously Approved Themes - which is
to perform primarily a diff-review of the changes, in order to expedite
getting updated Themes out to current users, and to leave more time for
Themes still waiting to be approved - is that, if something gets overlooked
in the initial review, it is likely to continue to be overlooked.

Usually, such omissions involve the more "minor" criteria, like screenshot,
or Post Title width, or the like - in other words, the majority of the
things you observed regarding Platform.

Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110215/a35aec4e/attachment.htm>