[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Doug Stewart
zamoose at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 14:05:00 UTC 2012
I *think* (IIRC) that I added that to the head back when duplicate
content was a real concern. I'm assuming WP core + WP SEO takes care
of making sure Google doesn't penalize me, right?
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Joost de Valk <joost at yoast.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
--
-Doug
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list