[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Edward Caissie
edward.caissie at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 12:28:20 UTC 2012
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/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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d635be60/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list