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

Wed Jul 23 00:30:02 UTC 2014

We are done here, but I will make a last ditch attempt at wpfoundation, do
you have an email address or should I use their contact form.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> 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>
>> 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>
>> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20140723/dee90ea9/attachment-0001.html>