[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Chip Bennett
chip at chipbennett.net
Thu Mar 8 20:49:39 UTC 2012
How about:
Since the purpose of Themes is to define the presentation of user content,
Themes must not be used to define the generation of user content, or to
define Theme-independent site options or functionality.
Since this is a top-level Guideline, I agree that we should make it as
legible as possible. :)
Chip
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120308/7325a776/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list