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

Tue Jul 22 23:00:25 UTC 2014

Honestly? No, I can't look at those search results and find anything
explicit, objective, and fair by which to craft an enforceable Guideline.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> shutting up but one final question :
>
> you can't see the difference between the following and form a guideline?
>
> https://www.google.com/#q=%22premium+photography+wordpress+theme%22
> and
> https://www.google.com/#q=%22reptio+wordpress+theme%22
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:37 AM, 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cb7661cb/attachment-0001.html>