[theme-reviewers] Fwd: Plugin territory

Mon Jun 17 22:50:40 UTC 2013

Its not instructing the user to add analytics code, its making it obvious
to them that they can use this option to insert analytics code. By allowing
theme options for header and footer scripts that make it clear they can be
used for Google Analytics code or other uses, we're giving the end user an
option. When they switch themes they can make sure that their new theme has
these options, or turn to a plugin. I don't think you can go out on a limb
and say that plugin  is going to be better coded. Most likely it is if it
came from the WordPress.org plugin repo, but it might have come from
anywhere. You can't guarantee the quality of every random plugin on the
internet.

I agree a plugin is the better way to do it. But then again, I wouldn't use
a plugin, I'd just modify the theme, which I'd obviously version controlled
so I wouldn't loose that modification when I updated the theme,
but weren't not talking about users like me here. We're making a valid
option, less obvious to the end user, and I don't really see how we're
protecting them by doing so.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> No, I'm saying that a Theme option to allow the user to insert arbitrary
> scripts or custom CSS is perfectly fine, but that a Theme *instructing* the
> user to use that option to insert analytics code is not, because it is
> functionally equivalent to the Theme providing an option intentionally for
> inserting analytics code.
>
> We're not making their lives *more* complicated; we've making their lives
> *less* complicated - because analytics and SEO become a matter of "set and
> forget", regardless of what Theme is being used. (For the typical user, the
> question isn't *if* that user will switch Themes in the future, but rather
> *when* that user will switch Themes.) Further, I'll go out on a limb and
> say that a Plugin intended specifically for analytics code and/or SEO is
> going to be *better* coded, and *more* likely to be kept up-to-date, than
> analogous options in a given Theme.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Chip-
>>
>> Am I understanding you correctly that if a theme has an option called
>> "add header script", that is OK, but if it has an option called "add
>> analytics code to header" that is not OK, even though they do the exact
>> same thing? That doesn't make sense.
>>
>> This requirement is making users add one more plugin to worry about
>> updating, checking for incompatibilities with, etc. We're talking about a
>> class of users that doesn't know to/ isin't comfortable doing something as
>> simple as putting the tracking code in a function hooked to
>> wp_header/footer or just cut and paste it into header.php. These aren't
>> people who can evaluate a plugin to see if it is adding the analytics the
>> right way or not... Why are we making their lives more complicated instead
>> of judging the "add analytics" option the same way as the forbidden "add
>> header script" option, which we allow as long as it is implemented properly?
>>
>> -Josh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> I would require the text to be changed, if it says "add your analytics
>>> code", since adding analytics code is Plugin territory.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> some are labelled "add your analytics code" and some just "add your
>>>> header/footer scripts".
>>>> I approved them without pointing it out as i wasn't sure of the rule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that the end user will use them for that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> because they are used to add analytics scripts or similar to
>>>>>> header/footer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Not being sarcastic; I'm honestly asking.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do textarea field's meant for header/footer scripts fall under
>>>>>>>> plugin territory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Chip Bennett <
>>>>>>>> chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Themes are always required to conform to the guidelines as current
>>>>>>>>> when the Theme is submitted. Guidelines can and do change, and previous
>>>>>>>>> reviews can and do miss required criteria. I would note all of the required
>>>>>>>>> issues, and hold the ticket open to allow for developer response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM, devcorn <wp at devcorn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was reviewing one theme and it has so many.. many things which
>>>>>>>>>> comes under plugin territory  shortcodes, SEO, download/upload... etc
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  But the theme was previously approved, actually always
>>>>>>>>>> approved... so I don't know what should I do with it. I don't want to
>>>>>>>>>> disappoint the author , I can approve it with note to fix all these stuff
>>>>>>>>>> in next version, but to my surprise. I downloaded and test old version and
>>>>>>>>>> they had all of it.. so I don't know if I missed something as I joined WTRT
>>>>>>>>>> last week only.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Ash
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130617/e6fadc66/attachment.html>