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

Wed Jul 23 00:27:38 UTC 2014

Are we done?

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Daniel Fenn <danielx386 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Srikanth on the fact that having a theme called "Premium
> photography" would be gaining an unfair advantage over those who comes
> up with their own original name and who are creative with what they
> call their theme.
>
> And yes I'm worried that the theme repo will become a spam feast.
>
> Over at the phpBB camp, most of the authors comes up with an original
> name and there never been any issues with SEO as the authors self
> regulate themselves.
> .
> Regards,
> Daniel Fenn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > 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
> <javascript:;>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>> 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
> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Srikanth Koneru
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> >> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org <javascript:;>
> 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/e6ac037c/attachment-0001.html>