[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Chip Bennett
chip at chipbennett.net
Wed Mar 7 12:57:34 UTC 2012
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/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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b688f634/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list