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

Wed Jul 23 01:30:42 UTC 2014

That is fine :)

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','chip at chipbennett.net');>> wrote:
>
>> http://wordpressfoundation.org/contact/
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','emil at uzelac.me');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are we done?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Daniel Fenn <danielx386 at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org');>
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org');>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20140722/5f6e47e3/attachment-0001.html>