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

Tue Jul 22 23:50:53 UTC 2014

Too much subjectivity. Too much ambiguity. How much is "too much" SEO
positioning? How many search result hits are too many?

Sorry, this is unenforceable. We have better things to do with our time.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at https://www.google.com/#q=%22reptio+wordpress+theme%22 you
> will see that there are no results and there are no results because there
> is no business segment/audience called "reptio". Anyone naming their theme
> reptio is doing so for uniqueness, branding.
>
> If you look at
> https://www.google.com/#q=%22premium+photography+wordpress+theme%22 there
> are a ton of themes because photography is a huge business segment. Anyone
> naming their theme "Premium photography" is doing so to gain an advantage
> over those results using wordpress.org domain authority and link juice
> provided by WordPress users.
>
> If you want to frame a guideline it can be something like this:
> Theme names are required to be unique and free of any industry
> keywords/buzzwords and void of any SEO intent/advantage. SEO
> intent/advantage will be checked using a simple phrase match google search
> with wordpress theme appended to theme name and should result in zero
> results.
>
> Sure there maybe some false positives but it should be acceptable.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140722/11569faa/attachment-0001.html>