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

[Chip Bennett]

So, any Theme name that returns even one search result hit should be
disallowed?

No, I don't find that to be practical, or reasonable.

If I've offered nothing constructive, it's because - again - I am adamantly
opposed to the TRT being the Word Police.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Where is the subjectivity, ambiguity in should result in zero results.
> Looks to me you are closed to discussion, if so there is no point. You
> have offered nothing constructive.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140722/2f9a9053/attachment-0001.html>