[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Angelo Bertolli
angelo at bertolli.org
Tue Mar 6 22:30:35 UTC 2012
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>> 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>> 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>> 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>> 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>
>> 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
> <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
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list