Here’s an idea – each extra ‘theme’ that people would like to include as part of their bundle adds $1 extra to the price tag. That way themes which have 66 extra demos would cost 66 extra dollars. This would help to regulate the situation and present the customer with a standardised way of differentiating the value in different products.
Dear Eric, There are many site templates out there on themeforest those are still in SITE TEMPLATE category rather being in | ThemeForest > CMS Themes > Miscellaneous | as you suggested in your last message. I think you should take immediate action to move out all of these from SITE TEMPLATE category the one ENVATO actually finalized. Here i am listing some website those have Theme/Page Builder but still are in SITE TEMPLATE category:
All these items your have mentioned fall into the HTML page builder category, not the Custom CMS category as their sole purpose is to produce HTML documents – not manage content via a database as a CMS does.
That font looks a little crusty – try Roboto Slab for a smoother slab alternative.
Ditch the scroll hijacking – that always creates an unpleasant user experience.
Calm down on the animations – just use animation as a light touch to emphasise certain elements.
That orange is a little full on – I’d suggest checking out some more neutral colour schemes. dribbble is a good place for inspiration
Thanks for the clarification Eric – looks like we can continue business as usual
Hey everyone, no cause for alarm. We’re reviewing this issue within the team and will keep you posted with more clarification shortly. Thanks for your patience
Any update on this? There’s been no word for almost 2 weeks, we’re wondering what to do about our next template release.
Hey Eric thanks for the reply, it’s nice to hear there’s no cause for alarm. Will be keen to hear the clarification
And html have builders… whats up with that? That’s not html that’s almost like an CMS system
This thread is about authors over-selling items bundles with tons of micro-niche styles, so let’s not derail the thread.For our detailed response to the above misconception, see this topic: http://themeforest.net/forums/thread/item-rejected-page-builders-are-no-longer-permitted-on-themeforest/148580?page=3&message_id=1165974#1165974
Now, on the multipurpose topic: Our idea of a multipurpose template is, as Designova mentioned, a single design that can be showcased (perhaps with some differing colour schemes) in various arrangements.
When themes start advertising themselves as “Car Rental”, “Restaurant”, “Medical”, “Church”, “Construction” – this is no longer a single design because these pages usually include some elements brought in from outside the original design to fit the needs of that niche. For example the “Car Rental” demo includes a rental calculator and booking widget that was specifically created for that demo page and would not be used elsewhere in the theme and would have no relevance outside that demo, and hence it is single purpose.
Along with the trend towards “Include everything” packages, the visual deign suffers as it attempts to accommodate every niche, with no considerable thought put into any one in particular, and frankly end up a diluted, cheap-looking mess.
It is important to draw the line on what constitutes an HTML page builder and where the line becomes blurred between page builder and CMS.
We started development on Variant with the intention to provide users an easy way to quickly piece together an HTML page and modify the content based on the template they purchased. The output from Variant is pure, standard HTML with no inline styles or “Rubbish Code” and mimics exactly the coding style of the regular HTML pages included in the template package. What you get from Variant is exactly what you get in the predefined HTML files. In fact, we make the .html files for the template package in Variant itself.
We’ve gone to great lengths to ensure that Variant runs locally on the user’s machine with no installation or online access required, which we believe adheres to the traditional ethos of the HTML category – which we are proud to uphold.
In keeping with the spirit of HTML templates as they have always been sold on TF, it has always been our vision to provide a standard template that the user manipulates just as they would in a text editor. Our philosophy is that the user is not the designer and will have a better end result by assembling our pre-designed layout blocks and simply editing text/images to their needs. The end result is a valid HTML document that can be freely edited like any other – just with the added bonus of having saved lots of time assembling the layout. Pro users and developers can then take that clean HTML and do with it what they wish. This is precisely the purpose of HTML templates.
So far, the response has been overwhelmingly positive from both customers and Envato. Many customers have expressed how much they love this feature, and we were really proud that all our hard work paid off when Envato chose to feature Pivot with Variant. We feel that Variant had a lot to do with Pivot being featured as it represents an innovation in the field while staying close to the roots of what HTML templates should be.
It would be devastating if Envato choose to ban HTML page builders given that customers are so enthusiastic about them as shown in sales results and reviews/feedback.
Website creation for the novice user is trending towards a GUI based workflow as evidenced in the popularity of Squarespace, Wix, TheGrid, Startup Framework etc. and it is necessary for TF to evolve and keep pace in order to retain relevance and we believe that quality page builders that produce clean code are a way to encorporate the benefits of these easy-to-use systems in the HTML templates sold here on TF without compromising editability and what makes HTML templates so flexible and appealing to developers.
Given the emerging trend towards page builders in the HTML category, and that we are sailing in mainly uncharted waters, perhaps “Until further notice” could mean that Envato may be reviewing the situation and perhaps will again approve page builders in the future after establishing a more defined set of rules for builders in this new segment.
We went elite while on holiday, yay!
This is sounding a lot more reasonable than the previous proposal and addresses some of the shortcomings.
I wonder, what happens when a buyer and author have a disagreement regarding a support request, I understand that you are going to make things clear and explicit to buyers, but there are always bound to be grey areas.
Our main concern with the previous offering was that buyers can always hold you hostage via a 1 star review threat, will there be anything done to combat this behaviour?