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

Tue Jul 22 22:02:02 UTC 2014

Why should reviewers be conducting Google searches? And what are they
supposed to do with the results?
To judge the intent of theme name, ton of relevant results = SEO intent

what do those efforts provide in end-user benefits?
To make theme authors create decent themes instead of half/quarter/zero
decent ones and depend on SEO tricks.

What I don't understand is why would WP foundation want their directory and
domain authority abused like this?
Please answer this and I will shut up.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Why should reviewers be conducting Google searches? And what are they
> supposed to do with the results? And most importantly: what do those
> efforts provide in end-user benefits?
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Made up words have least potential to be an SEO keywords, but if you
>> don't want to ban dictionaries, a simple google search with WordPress theme
>> as an append to that theme name would reveal its intent.
>>
>> ex:
>> There will be almost nill relevant results for "Oenology Wordpress Theme"
>> before it was created by you.
>> There will be nill relevant results for "sharpet wordpress theme"
>> There will be nill relevant results for "reptio wordpress theme"
>>
>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "wine wordpress theme"
>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "premium photography
>> wordpress theme"
>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "mobile first wordpress theme"
>>
>> And a simple search is so very easy to perform and easy to judge. that
>> would be about 0.1% of workload for a reviewer. This is all assuming we
>> don't want the directory to be :
>>
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-responsive-photography
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/responsive-photography
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/responsive-small-business
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-mobile-first
>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/one-page-mobile-first
>> etc
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're talking in circles. I'm merely explaining the current Guideline.
>>> You're asking for a *new* Guideline.
>>>
>>> "Names like divi, avada, kyan, bron are fair/enforceable because those
>>> made up names are not SEO keywords"
>>>
>>> Please try to think through that assertion to its logical conclusions,
>>> including all intended and unintended consequences. "SEO Keyword" is not
>>> some fixed definition. It depends on context. Again, I'll use my own Theme
>>> as the example: under your suggestion, "Oenology" would not be a
>>> permissible Theme name, because it is a real word (i.e. not a made-up word)
>>> that could be used for SEO purposes.
>>>
>>> So do we throw out the entire English dictionary? And why just the
>>> English dictionary? What about Spanish? Or Latin? or Chinese? And if we
>>> don't blanket-ban dictionary words: who gets to decide the context and
>>> intent of a term used in/as a Theme name, to determine if that use is for
>>> "SEO" purposes or not?
>>>
>>> Is that really where you think we should be going?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't agree with :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = good
>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords ThemeShop" =
>>>> bad
>>>>
>>>> I think
>>>>
>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = bad
>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords ThemeShop" =
>>>> bad bad bad bad
>>>>
>>>> Names like divi, avada, kyan, bron are fair/enforceable because those
>>>> made up names are not SEO keywords.
>>>>
>>>> All I can do is explain my point and if that is okay with admins, then
>>>> so be it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your changed example may be the "ground reality", but it is NOT to
>>>>> focus of the quoted Guideline. That's the point I'm trying to make. To be
>>>>> perfectly clear, under the current Guideline:
>>>>>
>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = good
>>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords ThemeShop"
>>>>> = bad
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you want a enforceable, objective, definable and fair naming
>>>>> standards, you should simply ask us to use made up names like divi, avada,
>>>>> kyan, bron"
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes no sense, and is the exact opposite of enforceable,
>>>>> objective, definable, and fair.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My changed example is the ground reality, If its not within the
>>>>>> purview of TRT(not sure why it isn't) I was willing to make my case before
>>>>>> WP foundation but Otto seems to speak for them so its not needed anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want a enforceable, objective, definable and fair naming
>>>>>> standards, you should simply ask us to use made up names like divi, avada,
>>>>>> kyan, bron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You asked for clarification on the current Guideline. The example I
>>>>>>> gave explains the intent of that Guideline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your changed example is something completely different, and not
>>>>>>> something I believe to be within the purview of the TRT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take the name of my own Theme, for example: Oenology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, my Theme has nothing to do with Wine, though I take artistic
>>>>>>> license with it in the Theme description and motivation. Are you suggesting
>>>>>>> that my Theme name is acceptable as-is, but if I'd made a wine-related
>>>>>>> Theme, then it would *not* be acceptable, merely because it is a relevant
>>>>>>> SEO keyword?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I just can't get behind that. It's not objective, definable,
>>>>>>> enforceable, or fair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chip,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> convert this :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "Some Name"
>>>>>>>>  Theme B name: "Some Name by Amazing SEO Keywords"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keywords"
>>>>>>>> Theme B name: "Some Name by Amazing SEO Keywords"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the former, why are you objecting to Theme B name? because it
>>>>>>>> has "SEO Keywords"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice look + Great support + Great rating = Success in directory
>>>>>>>>> and or any other place out there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Catchy name is worthless without this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is why I said theme should be at least half decent, success
>>>>>>>>>> depends on how many people are actually using it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Srikanth Koneru <
>>>>>>>>>>> tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you think so, then go for it. Best of luck. However,
>>>>>>>>>>> being that I have the actual download and usage stats, let's just say that
>>>>>>>>>>> I have my doubts. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Names don't matter that much. Your Google-fu is not as strong as
>>>>>>>>>>> you believe it to be. WordPress.org is indeed a major player, but we're not
>>>>>>>>>>> the only game in town, and the truth is that people look for themes based
>>>>>>>>>>> on screenshots and functionality. Names may get you a Google search result,
>>>>>>>>>>> but they don't get a download or usage, and the fact of the matter is that
>>>>>>>>>>> people aren't stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Otto
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> 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/20140723/dfa5f15f/attachment-0001.html>