Last week we announced our newly published and recently updated WordPress theme submission requirements, which raised lots of valuable discussion over in the forum post. The insight everyone provided was valuable and greatly appreciated. It also reminded us that we need to be including more community input, from a wider group, from much earlier stages! Where you provided feedback and it was not taken on board, we also really apologise and hope the clarifications below address your concerns better this time.
The process also made it obvious that we hadn’t been communicating clearly enough at the launch of these submission requirements, which we’ll provide further clarification on here. We will continue working harder at improving our communications, especially from within the Review team and covering all other aspects of review.
[... Continue reading on Envato Notes ...]
I’m kinda wondering how the review process will go for all existing themes, if they don’t pass one of the req’s is that theme then soft-disabled until its fixed or are we notified with a grace period of lets say 5 days to remedy the problem and re-upload so we’re not losing out on sales. Especially for those of us like my self that have a massive portfolio of items and rely on TF as my sole full time income. Wouldn’t want to wake up one day and find 75% of my portfolio soft-disable over a column shortcode being included directly into the theme.
We definitely want to work with authors in advance to minimize any potential portfolio downtime (to none if at all possible). The specifics of how this particular project will need to run have yet to be determined but we’ll give everyone advanced notice before anything happens.
So existing themes will have a 6 months grace period. Wouldn’t that be an advantage?
So themes already released with tons of shortcodes and other features will clearly have a longer period to gain sales, over the new ones who will just have to see the impact of the new standard.
Why not use a 6 month grace period for all themes( released or future releases). Details:
Let’s say you get a start date like 1st of August 2013 and until 1st of February 2014 you will approve and also send notices to users to update to the future standard. So if an author releases a theme and it is approved but doesn’t meets the future standard you will send them notices to do that until 1st of February 2014.Therefore you are creating equal chances for everyone.
We’ll be posting more details for the revised timelines / plan (and are open to feedback) today via the Notes blog, so stay tuned for that.
Basically, we’ll be aiming for roughly November to start requiring some of the bigger changes to the submission requirements for new items submitted. This should allow everyone enough time to make adjustments to their theme development workflow without significantly disrupting anything.
Applying these requirements to existing themes is a big project by itself, so we won’t be able to do both of these at the same time (which would also be higher risk and impact to authors with large existing portfolios). We want to make sure we approach library re-reviews carefully and work closely with authors to ensure its a smooth transition.
designedbydash saidThanks for your patience, sorry it’s taking longer than expected. As Jarel, our review manager, posted a couple of days ago, we’re still pulling everything together for the update, but it really won’t be long now. I would imagine early this week.
I know Japh said it would be a few days, but just wondering if we have a more concrete date/time for the final confirmed requirements? It’s now starting to hold back the development of a new theme we’re working on as I don’t particularly want to do it one way, and then have to change it all to adhere to the new requirements.
Thanks for being patient while we work to clarify the requirements. We’re aiming for an update post by later today, but I’m also working to clarify a few other things with the review team which might delay the post until tomorrow. We’ll have more information soon!
Thanks so much for your feedback and the very helpful discussion. We’ve all been reading and taking your feedback on board and will be adjusting as appropriate. We’ll be posting a followup within the next couple days to provide clarification on the questions asked here and the adjusted plan moving forward. We’re also going to work much harder at improving our communications around these things — this is a very key aspect that senior management, Japh and I discussed first thing this morning.
I also want to add that we want to do as much as we can to work with authors to ease the transition to new requirements and minimize, as much as possible, potential negative impact those changes might have on everyone. The main goal here is to start getting our submission requirements published and continually work with authors to improve them.
In the mean time, please hold tight while we pull together further information for clarification and revise how we launch the updated submission requirements, particularly the bigger changes with more significant potential impacts.
Hi Ostein, Apologies for the confusion. I’m ensuring the staff are aware of this right now and have set your item to a soft-disabled state.
Now the story facing a twist!Is it allowed to get soft -disabled and upload somewhere else while also without breaking exclusivity agreement?
Occasionally authors have wanted to test the waters elsewhere and pretty much always come back. The problem with deleting an item and then undeleting it later is that it requires additional staff time (more than soft-disabling) and isn’t really to anyone’s benefit (the longer it’s not listed the fewer sales it generates) because it takes more time all around. My understanding is that so long as the item is not actively listed for sale on our marketplace(s) and others at the same time, an author will not be violating the exclusivity agreement.
My goal is to make the authoring process easier and to help everyone generate more sales. I know you’ll come back to us, so I want to make it easier for you to do that — since, you know, we’re the best place for you to sell your awesome work.
s**t just happens, no matter how well you test your code, any dev knows that and envato sites themselves are not bug free. That’s the main reason why we do update our items afterall, even without buyers notifying support. Hard to believe ms would stop selling their products each time a bug is spotted. A warning mail instead of an immediate soft reject would gain the same effect.
Right now it depends on the nature of the problem. For minor issues, items shouldn’t be disabled. Obviously major issues they should. However, we (the Review team) need to build more definition around what constitutes which, and we’re trying to get there as quickly as we can. This information would be published in the Knowledgebase for everyone’s awareness as well.
+ no reviews for updates we should be allow to have an immediate fix for files if theres a bug.
- theres no reason someone should wait 1-2 days(or more) for a bug fix when its just sitting in the queue.
- if the author has the file already excepted they should be trusted enough not to do nasty things in the code
- it frees up the reviewers time to focus on other things
Unfortunately what we know from experience is that updates can’t currently skip review. On the surface it seems like this is straight forward, but it’s actually not. That said, we would love to be able to enable this for authors but we’re not quite there yet.
The community team has brought this thread to my attention, apologies for the delay. I can understand the frustration and there’s been some discussion around this to improve the process, but ultimately what it comes down to is that if an item isn’t working as it should be then in most cases it needs to be disabled. This is primarily because buyers would be purchasing a broken item and potentially requesting refunds.
As authors it’s your responsibility to make sure your items work as described every time they’re uploaded or updated. This is the same principle used in physical retail stores.
That said, we are thinking about improvements that would better facilitate this process so there would be less effects to authors and buyers.