[theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?

Tue Jul 16 08:50:51 UTC 2013

I've contacted all of the admins about this, we need to decide if
this is a team or one person decision only. Sorry, I cannot stand
the bureaucracy no more. And again, no disrespect to anyone and
taking all as my personal opinion only :)

Thanks for the input :)

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Sami Keijonen <sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi>wrote:

> I vote for no for only recommending analytics scripts, SEO stuff, Custom
> Post Types etc. in a theme. All the reasons have been discussed several
> times here and other places.
>
> But this list really isn't best place for community to decide or vote
> something like this. There should be open poll for this. For example
>
> 1. SEO stuff in a theme
>
> a) It's required not to use them
> b) It's recommended not to use theme
> c) I don't know or care
>
>
> On 16 July 2013 00:43, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>
>> I would not base this on another Theme and yes it does seem unfair
>> for new Themes. The only items that should be required are:
>>
>>
>>    - Removing or modifying non-presentational core hooks
>>    - Disabling the admin toolbar
>>    - Resource compression/caching
>>
>>
>> robots.txt can be stopped via uploaded, so that part does not need
>> to be in.
>>
>> And we can recommend the rest:
>>
>>
>>    - Analytics scripts
>>    - SEO options (meta tags, page title, post titles, robots.txt, etc.)
>>    - Content Sharing buttons/links
>>    - Custom post-content shortcodes
>>    - Custom Post Types
>>    - Custom Taxonomies
>>
>>
>> Good, not, what do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Harish <me at harishchouhan.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds good for existing themes. However it would then seem unfair
>>> for new themes as old themes would have more features and the new once
>>> would feel of less value. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Instead, let us consider based on say popular themes such as Responsive,
>>> etc. and whatever features they have, make them acceptable for all new
>>> themes and lets just end that. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Regards,****
>>>
>>> Harish **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* theme-reviewers [mailto:
>>> theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] *On Behalf Of *Emil Uzelac
>>> *Sent:* Tue 16 July 13 02:41 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Would it be acceptable if this guideline<http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-plugin-territory/>does not apply to the Themes that are already in repository?
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *Plugin Territory Guidelines are required for new Themes, and
>>> recommended for existing Themes.*****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> If there are no security issues, conflict with the core etc.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Am I asking too much, what do you think?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> P.S. Also only few of us are discussing this, are the rest not
>>> interested, affected, what's up?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Emil ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:****
>>>
>>> Excuse me, Mr. Bennett.   As part of the ‘community’; there have been
>>> discussions for and against, yet YOU working OUT of the team made the
>>> determination as a requirement.    You completely ignored the make
>>> WordPress themes conversation when it was first discussed and decided ON
>>> YOUR OWN.    In an email with other’s they were still under the impression
>>> that it was ‘recommended’ still up until several weeks ago when it came
>>> back into topic of conversation.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> While it would be beneficial for you to believe you are in a team, your
>>> actions have stated otherwise.   From the very beginning to now.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> ****
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2013 8:27 AM****
>>>
>>> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> For the record: the Theme Review Admins work as a team. There is no
>>> "leader". It has always been that way, and will continue to be that way,
>>> unless and until we are told otherwise. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The community rep is just that: a liaison to communicate with the rest
>>> of the WordPress community. The community rep doesn't have to be one of the
>>> Admins (and I think it would be great if a non-admin would want to take up
>>> that role sometime).****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> What we are engaging in at the moment is a *discussion*. As part of that
>>> discussion, Emil and I are expressing our opinions. It is not required that
>>> all Admins hold to the same opinion (nor would such be a benefit). ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:****
>>>
>>> End users have lived with it so far, there haven’t been any major
>>> complaints or suggestions on the forums to say the contrary.   I believe
>>> you are over emphasizing the severity.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> There are people including myself that do not agree with this and you
>>> personally are not listening to the community.  Which makes things
>>> difficult because you apparently have no one to answer to.   Last I checked
>>> Emil was lead at the moment and you are not.   When the community itself or
>>> members thereof do not like the results that are happening there needs to
>>> be someone that can be talked with that can mediate the situation and make
>>> a determination.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> It would behoove you to not be as adamant as you are.   Consider a
>>> compromise then, most of our ‘concerns’ with the myself and others who have
>>> had themes on the repo for a predominate amount of time would not like to
>>> see our end users have the headache that it will cause to add an additional
>>> plugin.   Hostings like 1and1 and some others are very limited with their
>>> memory usage; *so consider making it so that all NEW themes as a
>>> requirement to not include said plugin territory options and things in
>>> priority 1 should be a bit more lenient in reviewing updates*.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I am already maxed out in tech support as it is where I do not have time
>>> nor the inclination to sit here and worry about 20,000+ people who are
>>> going to be emailing me or adding post after post on the forums concerning
>>> a new update which destroys their site.    Currently I already point them
>>> to the github instead of the repo.   I am positive that the repo was there
>>> for theme’s to be able to be stored and able to be a helpful tool for the
>>> end user and not a hindrance.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> ****
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2013 5:12 AM****
>>>
>>> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?
>>> ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Those when switching to one theme or another will have some things no
>>> longer work – and that is fine.  There are plenty of ways, avenues and
>>> programming that you can take to include those features into the theme you
>>> switch to.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I disagree with "and that is fine." Most end users aren't developers,
>>> and won't have the skills or desire to take advantage of the "plenty of
>>> ways, avenues and programming" to add missing functionality to their new
>>> Theme.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The single most important party in this consideration is not the Theme
>>> developer, or the Theme reviewers, but rather the Theme's end users. ***
>>> *
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The BIGGEST idea about that the don’t-worry-about-it group’s main
>>> objective is to make the theme review process easier and faster to get
>>> through.   The biggest thing that people get hung up on returning day after
>>> day to review themes is how time consuming they are to go through.   We
>>> also believe that it’s not the theme review team’s responsibility to
>>> control that aspect of allowing a theme to have a feature or not, that is
>>> up to the core dev’s to make that determination.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The core team has made it the Theme Review Team's responsibility. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> And I disagree that what you're suggesting would make Theme reviews
>>> easier. Why would a Theme review be easier if the Theme can include any
>>> manner of arbitrary functionality? Allowing functionality that goes beyond
>>> presentation of user content just means that much more code that a reviewer
>>> has to review, understand, and test. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Use all of the plugins, theme unit test and requirements for the
>>> backlinks and other things.   Do the cursory views of everything that’s
>>> important and move em through the review process. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> That's not sufficient for the end user. Code needs to be secure.
>>> Included functionality needs to work properly.I contend that those
>>> considerations *are* important to end users. Thus, everything that a Theme
>>> indicates that it does needs to be tested during the review process.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The single most important party in this consideration is not the Theme
>>> developer, or the Theme reviewers, but rather the Theme's end users.****
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sami Keijonen
> Fox Holding Oy
> sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi
> www.foxnet.fi
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130716/ed1047e3/attachment-0001.html>