[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline

Joost de Valk joost at yoast.com
Wed Mar 7 13:35:05 UTC 2012


Agreed, that wording would also cover robots meta :-)

Best,
Joost

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 mrt. 2012, at 13:57, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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/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>
> >>>     >>             <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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120307/4bbd72bd/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list