[theme-reviewers] Proposal for new guideline
Trent Lapinski
trent at cyberchimps.com
Thu Mar 8 21:20:04 UTC 2012
Ah got it Amy, my mistake.
Regardless, again make the policy just say that then:
"Themes should not affect SEO related meta tags."
Or whatever it is that is being set forth here.
Anything regarding the "presentation of content" is very vague and conflicting statement to make.
--Trent Lapinski
=============
CEO of CyberChimps LLC
trent at cyberchimps.com
Mobile (714) 904-4280
Twitter @trentlapinski
http://CyberChimps.com
On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Amy Hendrix wrote:
> Just so we're clear, the guideline about presenting content has
> nothing to do with collecting user data -- you may confusing it with
> the guideline about privacy and security. This one arises from the
> discussion about SEO-related meta tags (which shouldn't be affected by
> changing themes).
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>
>> 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. :)
>>
>>
>> I honestly have no idea what that means, and I highly doubt anyone else
>> will.
>>
>> If this is going to be a policy then just say it:
>>
>> "Themes are not allowed to collect ANY data including analytic data from
>> users without their consent."
>>
>> Don't make this anymore confusing then it needs to be.
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list