[theme-reviewers] Fwd: Plugin territory

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 13:14:04 UTC 2013 

What I find troubling about this whole "plugin territory" thread (and other
threads in the past) is the recurring comments related to quality themes
not be updated / submitted due to "new" reviewers interpreting the
guidelines in such a way as to no longer approve these themes; themes that
also have active user bases the theme authors are also making efforts to
support (large or small size, as in quantity, does not matter here). This
ultimately appears to be forcing WordPress (theme) end-users to look
elsewhere than the current repositories for updates (and support?) for
their themes. This seems to be counter-productive to the original basic
ideals of the repository.

Edward Caissie
aka Cais.


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thomas from ThemeZee
<contact at themezee.com>wrote:

> @ Emil: I agree that the second implementation which uses wp_head is
> relative harmless and there is only little impact on the user's experience.
>
> I guess what Chip meant is that if the option is used, the user will still
> loose the tracking functionality by changing to another theme. And that can
> be bad for the user's experience - especially for WordPress beginners.
>
> After all it's a question what we can expect from the average WordPress
> user.
>
> I would suggest to allow header/footer scripts, but if developers want to
> use such options they should be required/recommended to point out some
> information in the option's description that the scripts will be gone by a
> theme change.
>
>
> 2013/6/18 Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
>
>> I am tired and probably not thinking this right, but what Chip is trying
>> to say
>> is that "we" have no room for "funny" stuff in Themes.
>>
>> I have (had) a pretty young Theme with *677,495* downloads so far, but
>> the
>> codes "my" Theme have are very much different from most* of the Themes.
>>
>> GA codes are not integrated, unless user goes and pastes the actual GA JS
>> in it.
>>
>> Meaning that "empty" fields are not the same as the codes where all "you"
>> need
>> to do is to paste (enter) GA UA code in the order to complete, have GA JS
>> code working. And that's what I believe is happening lately.
>>
>> So once again:
>>
>> *This*
>>
>>         <!-- Google Analytics: change UA-XXXXX-X to be your site's ID. -->
>>
>>
>>         <script>
>>
>>
>>
>>             var _gaq=[['_setAccount','UA-XXXXX-X'],['_trackPageview']];
>>
>>
>>             (function(d,t){var g=d.createElement(t),s=d.getElementsByTagName(t)[0];
>>
>>
>>             g.src='//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
>>
>>
>>             s.parentNode.insertBefore(g,s)}(document,'script'));
>>
>>
>>         </script>
>>
>>
>> *is not the same* as empty field where user can paste the entire JS,
>> which would be something
>> along the line of:
>>
>> function responsive_site_statistics_tracker() {
>>     global $responsive_options;
>>     if (!empty($responsive_options['site_statistics_tracker'])) {
>>         echo $responsive_options['site_statistics_tracker'];
>> 	}
>> }
>>
>> add_action('wp_head', 'responsive_site_statistics_tracker');
>>
>>
>> And if "you" don't, well nothing happens, no harm done, let's use the
>> plugin.
>>
>> Responsive is just an example, maybe not the perfect one, but you'll get
>> my point.
>>
>> Same goes for social and other stuff too.
>>
>> Chip et al., please correct me if I am wrong?
>>
>> *P.S.* Other way around was never "allowed", at least not to my
>> knowledge.
>> *P.P.S* Something like "Responsive" as an example does not and will not
>> "hurt" the user's experience, nor will stand in way of plugins to do their
>> job.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Emil
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>
>>>   This is true, there was a topic on Grandfathered themes and the
>>> outcome was as you said.
>>>
>>> With the new methodology and guidelines I don’t see how people could
>>> have an understanding which themes to do that with, except I always
>>> considered the ones already on the repo were like that when I was doing
>>> reviews.
>>>
>>>   Anyone have any idea’s how to make a consideration mark for that?  ..
>>> one of my themes has an alltime download of  468,351
>>>
>>> Pretty sure there’s only a about ten thousand actually using it.
>>> (easel)   I haven’t updated ComicPress because it’s a ‘speciality’ theme
>>> and pretty sure will not pass these stringent rules if someone didn’t
>>> grandfather it when reviewing.   On github I made it do all the necessary
>>> things for the wp_head and functions.php changes; but there’s a ton that it
>>> does beyond.   ComicPress itself has around a few tens of thousands of
>>> users using it for their comics; although I wrote Comic Easel (plugin) to
>>> replace it and an easy Migrator plugin CP2CE to migrate from ComicPress to
>>> Comic Easel, people really are not lining up to do that.
>>>
>>> So.. what types of things can happen to make it easier to acknowledge
>>> grandfather’d themes?
>>>
>>> Chip?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  *From:* Bruce Wampler <weavertheme at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2013 9:00 PM
>>> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Fwd: Plugin territory
>>>
>>>    OK - the theme in question is MY theme, Weaver II.
>>>
>>> And the theme has tens of thousands of users. It has been in the
>>> repository for years.
>>>
>>> So, as far as I understand, long existing themes are grandfathered for
>>> many of the newer requirements.
>>>
>>> When it was first approved, many of the the things is does were allowed
>>> in themes.
>>>
>>> But it is still important to update bugs, keep up to date with new WP
>>> features, etc. But it would be totally unfair and literally disastrous, for
>>> my many thousands of users to have their sites break by forcing the long
>>> existing theme to comply with new standards. Note that most of the issues
>>> today would involve the many shortcodes provided with the theme that might
>>> be called plugin territory today.
>>>
>>> Note that my new theme, Aspen, does comply strictly with the new
>>> standards - nothing in plugin territory.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, there were some important bug fixes in the submitted
>>> version, and approval is being held up by a new reviewer.
>>>
>>> Bruce Wampler
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Philip- I sent my last message for reading yours. You've given several
>>>> examples of when the no plugin option might be better than the plugin
>>>> option, which is in general better. Your last example especially
>>>> illustrates how this can hurt developers and users.  If a user is looking
>>>> specifically for themes that can add the tracking code, and list it as a
>>>> feature--because they need that, but need to limit their plugin count--they
>>>> are not going to choose a theme that  doesn't specifically say it has an
>>>> option to add header/ footer scripts such as tracking codes, even though it
>>>> does. Now the user missed out on a good theme, and the developer's theme
>>>> got used one less time. Many of us are giving away themes in hopes of the
>>>> end user paying us for an upsell version, theme customization, or a fancy
>>>> child theme. Every time we loose a user of our free theme, we loose a
>>>> potential customer for our services that we charge for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>>>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   the Google Analyticator plugin is so awesome; there’s no comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> .. on the fence with SEO; I haven’t seen one that is done right..
>>>>> yoast is close; but the biggest problem is ones like all-in-one generate
>>>>> the data for each and every thing on every page load; which is bad; that’s
>>>>> a lot of processing going on.   I think to be done right it needs to
>>>>> incorporate saving SEO data within meta fields and other things and not
>>>>> always regenerated on each page load..
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, there’s the ‘load’ of the plugin which hasn’t been discussed;
>>>>> each plugin contains a higher memory footprint for each and every plugin
>>>>> that is loaded.    While little things like the google analytics code being
>>>>> so simple and all; having it as an increase in the memory footprint
>>>>> (execution time on server; mem used etc)  might actually be a benefit to
>>>>> the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plugin (saves in data, generates extra resource for each plugin used)
>>>>> .. or one single line storing the Google Code which executes with the
>>>>> theme.. uh... yeah.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a couple services that some clients of mine are on that
>>>>> those users cannot have more then 4-5 plugins active because the footprint
>>>>> of wordpress is higher then the amount of memory those services give in
>>>>> available processing/memory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2013 3:27 PM
>>>>> *To:* [theme-reviewers] <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Fwd: Plugin territory
>>>>>
>>>>>   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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20130618/d5a62a1a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list