[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Edward Caissie
edward.caissie at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 20:19:28 UTC 2012
A little re-wording suggestion:
"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. "
... to:
"Themes are used to present content. They must not be used to define the
generation of the site's content. They should also not be used to define
Theme-independent site options or functionality."
I consider this more a soft-sell approach; and as noted this is something
that has been addressed for quite some time but simply not put into the
guidelines.
Cais.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> I have "roughed in" this change. Please make comments so that we can
> improve it as necessary:
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Guidelines
>
> Related changes:
>
> 1. In order to avoid confusion between the "Presentation vs Functionality"
> guidelines and the "Theme Functionality" guidelines, I changed the "Theme
> Functionality" terminology to "Theme Features", which is the same
> terminology used throughout the Codex to refer to Nav Menus, etc.
> 2. Because it might fit better there, I moved the Favicon guidelines from
> "Including other Resources" to "Presentation vs Content". The favicon is
> more of a matter of site *identity*, but it falls into the same category of
> things that shouldn't change when the Theme changes.
>
> I think this will be a positive addition to the Guidelines. We have been
> operating somewhat under this principle all along, but never actually put
> it into the Guidelines. Having it there will allow us to encourage more and
> more best practices, such as proper filtering of wp_title() for output of
> the HTML document title.
>
> Chip
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:57 AM, 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/20120308/bbb896e1/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list