[theme-reviewers] Need Clarification on theme name which is fine as per the guideline and as per the other theme names !

Tue Jul 22 18:46:23 UTC 2014

Chip, both are seo seeded, I think you don't have much SEO/Internet
marketing knowledge/experience?
Otto, which search are you talking about Google or theme directory?

This is how it works :

I make a theme, name it "Premium Photography" get it into directory, I get
a url www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography and my credit link will
be <a href="http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography">Premium
Photography Theme</a>

I get downloads from directory which will get me link juice, combining the
link juice and wordpress.org domain authority I am already in the top 3-7
ranks on google, give it some time to get more downloads and build links
and I am in top 1-3 and I now have a steady monthly pay check with no
effort.

All you need is a half decent theme and a nice keyword, now if I get lucky
and it gets featured, I can buy a nice car or a house.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Theme A name: "Premium Photography"
> Theme B name: "AwesomeSauce by Awesome Free WP Themes"
>
> One is SEO-seeded. The other is not.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Chip, the guideline I am talking about is filed under "Theme Name"
>> heading and not under "Credit Links"
>>
>> "Themes are *not* to use Theme author/developer credit text in their
>> name. For example *AwesomeSauce by John Q. Developer* (makes for a much
>> better credit link); or, SEO/SPAM-seeded text, such as: *AwesomeSauce by
>> Awesome Free WP Themes*."
>>
>> It says theme name should not use seo text or spam text in theme name.
>>
>> My intention is not to antagonize admins, just want to know when does it
>> get spammy and what definition of spam is for you.
>> You know, put a definition so in future we won't have these
>> misunderstandings.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Guidelines say that *credit links* should not have SEO keywords.
>>>
>>> There's a big difference. The point of the guideline is to avoid
>>> *stuffing* the credit link with words *other* than the Theme name. Using
>>> the Theme name as the credit link is the requirement, and using the Theme
>>> name as the credit link would never inherently fall under "SEO seeding".
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Otto, you are agreeing "premium photography" is a bad SEO attempt, but
>>>> that guideline says names should not have SEO keywords.
>>>> So tomorrow is someone submits "premium responsive photography" is that
>>>> acceptable? When does it become spam? Just curious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to make this real, real simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> First off, I don't understand why this is even an argument. "Premium
>>>>> Photography" strikes me as a perfectly acceptable name. Not spammy even a
>>>>> little bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, if theme names being submitted do get to a point of
>>>>> actually being "spammy", then I'll simply put a stop to it... with great
>>>>> prejudice. I don't use override authority often, but any actual spam found
>>>>> *will be stopped*.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't allow spam on WordPress.org, and that's a flat rule that is
>>>>> well above and beyond any of the theme-review team's decision. We know spam
>>>>> and abuse when we see it, regardless of definitions decided by anybody
>>>>> else's guidelines. We hate spam, and will not abide its presence on the
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion would be to choose names for names and not for any form
>>>>> of SEO text. Names are not keywords nor search terms, they're names. Names
>>>>> should be unique. From that perspective, "Premium Photography" is a
>>>>> terrible name. It is neither descriptive nor, in fact, a "name". It doesn't
>>>>> lend itself well to discussion or to searching based on its unique
>>>>> identity. It's a *bad* SEO attempt, frankly. But it's not quite "spam".
>>>>>
>>>>> -Otto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Daniel Fenn <danielx386 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chip, is there any chance that you can bring the discussion over to
>>>>>> the mailing list and allow others to have a say? I know that the OP
>>>>>> wants it admin only but I feel that anyone should be able to have
>>>>>> their say, as long as it respectful.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Daniel Fenn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20140723/13df247c/attachment-0001.html>