[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Emil Uzelac
emil at themeid.com
Wed Mar 7 07:09:13 UTC 2012
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/diguis 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120307/bd24d5c6/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list