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

Tue Jul 22 22:28:59 UTC 2014

I think that we are discussing several different items at once ;)

As far as the SPAM/SEO theme names, please note that they don't even hit
the review and not something we should be worrying much.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> "Judging the intent of Theme name" = 100% subjective. No guideline can
> reasonably be crafted to be fair, objective, or enforceable. We have a
> difficult enough time getting all reviewers to understand what "GPL
> compatible" means. Do you really think we have a prayer of being successful
> at making reviewers all experts in SEO?
>
> In what way does Theme name correlate to Theme quality? Making developers
> jump through hoops to come up with Theme names isn't going to make them
> magically improve their code or design quality.
>
> It isn't the role of the TRT to police for abuse of WPORG's domain
> authority. Our role is to ensure that Themes hosted in the official Theme
> directory are of the best-possible quality, providing the best possible
> experience for end users. The TRT doesn't speak for the WP Foundation. Otto
> does, and has spoken. Any obvious SEO/spam will be dealt with - harshly, I
> daresay - by him.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140722/8579cb77/attachment-0001.html>