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

Wed Jul 23 01:16:12 UTC 2014

Thank you, was the form I was referring to, but please note I will only be
contacting them because you say you have no authority and not to undermine
yours.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> http://wordpressfoundation.org/contact/
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140723/9b091029/attachment-0001.html>