[theme-reviewers] Question: Someone Want to Take Benefit From a'Top Reviewer of the Month'.

[Trent Lapinski]

> Please answer this: Let's say that one of us sent you an email informing you about
> this, what would you done differently? 


Emil I would have asked for an explanation for why the most popular theme on WordPress.org is being unfeatured and removed from WP-Admin > Themes at the height of its popularity. I then would have requested we be provided with precise instructions on what we would have to do to remain in consideration for being featured.

At the very least it would have given us time to prepare and get involved more heavily in the review contest. Instead it was mentioned in a blog post that wasn’t even brought to our attention until after we were singled out and unfeatured. It was extremely unprofessional to say the least on this subject.

In my opinion, Responsive never needed to be removed to make room for the contest to begin with.

The admins could have easily just added 3 more themes to the featured list. Why Responsive was singled out is still beyond me. Instead of celebrating a million downloads, we’re now scrambling trying to figure out how we can sustain our theme without the support of .org.

I am having a very difficult time understanding why Responsive was removed, and I’m frustrated for obvious reasons.

It is even worse that we’re now being made out to be the big bad theme shop in the community now for pooling our reviews into a single account when it is directly because the .org admins forced us to do because you wouldn’t consider our individual accounts collectively or our past reviews.

I believe this contest is unfair, and I believe the previous process while unfair as well at least didn’t need to be undone because of the new review contest.

This will be my last post on this issue.

I truly hope this never happens to another theme author again, because basically the message I’m getting and the message you’re sending to the rest of the community is that if you become successful on .org you will lose the support of .org.

--Trent Lapinski
=============
CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
http://CyberChimps.com
Twitter @trentlapinski

On Jan 29, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> @Trent even though everyone on this list knew that featured Themes
> would be cycled out if their Theme Authors are not winners and Theme
> nominated.
> 
> 1) here's the notification:
> 
> The Theme that will be cycled out is: Responsive.
> 
> https://make.wordpress.org/themes/2013/11/18/theme-review-incentive-november-2013-winners/
> 
> 2) Please answer this: Let's say that one of us sent you an email informing you about
> this, what would you done differently? 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> @Konstantin - An expected and fair reaction. The idea is that the money would be donation-based to help the community, like sponsored advertising. I don't believe that contradicts or breaks the non-profit status, that's how PBS operates for example (selling ad space), I think, I could be wrong.
> 
> I know wordpress.com of course supports wordpress.org and some of its paid employees, but allocation and expenses don't seem to trickle toward projects like Theme Review, I believe I recall @Otto has discussed in the past about limited resources?
> 
> Anyways, I assumed it wouldn't be a popular idea, just spit-balling here. :)
> 
> @Emil - Definitely, for those developers that want to develop for .com and are able to be accepted, that's can be a great earner.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140129/cc9170b6/attachment.html>