Hot Posts


Developers are expressing concerns about plugin listings outranking on Google search.

The developers are raising concerns about plugin listings outranking on Google search results. They believe this could lead to confusion for users looking for reliable and quality plugins for their websites.

When WordPress core developer John Blackbourn shared a screenshot of his WordPress User Switching plugin that was ranking higher on than on, it ignited a contentious debate yesterday.

I should have phrased this better because it was an angry 2 AM tweet, but the point is still made, he said. Dotcom's plugin pages are essentially promotional landing pages for the dotcom service, and they are in direct competition with the official Dotorg pages. That isn't good for you.

While many others still see pages rated highest, some more posted about experiencing similar experiences while looking for plugins and seeing that frequently ranks higher.

Given the ranking strength, Blackbourn stated his main issue is the procedure that launched the directory clone, which either ignored its potential influence in favor of inbounds or never gave it much thought at all.

The tweet brought to light the ongoing uncertainty about branding between and, which frustrates certain members of the open source community. Renaming alone won't clear up the long-standing confusion, but that's doubtful since Automattic gains by closely associating its products with the WordPress brand.

According to SEO specialist Rebecca Gill, duplicate content confuses both people and search engines. Neither search engines nor people looking for answers to their issues will enjoy it. For those who are not tech savvy,.org already causes enough uncertainty. It gets amplified by this. Canonicalize content or noindex it. plugin directory is included in plugin directory, which gives plugin developers additional distribution and installs, increasing their usage and, in the case of commercial ones, increasing sales. Not only not take a cut for distribution, but the plugins remain unaltered.

Not everyone in the debate expressed outrage over the distribution of plugins in this way. A few commenters agree with this approach and think it will help the open source project in the long run.

To be honest, I'm all for it," Cristian Raiber, a WordPress developer, stated. While anyone could scrape those pages, not everyone contributes to WordPress' continued existence and ensures that it exists for many years to come. Yes, controversial. But I would rather that we construct together than apart.

This finally removes a barrier to purchase for possible customers. streamlined plugin usage and installation as opposed to "Here's a list of 55 steps to install my plugin." Users desire options, a variety of use cases, and everything. For to continue expanding this product, I want them to be profitable.

Francesca Marano, the director of engineering at XWP, proposed that has profited from the reputation and branding of the domain. Additionally, she suggested that Automattic has the capacity to completely rebrand, which would ultimately be advantageous for both projects.

Because practically no other host offers a robust SaaS version, including a free version,.org has benefited from the branding and reputation since its founding. It has been used by over 200 million people, many of whom began before moving to a different host. It was extremely difficult for businesses like Typepad to compete because of the shared branding. Do you want to know how WP would appear in its absence? Visit Joomla.

Numerous performance enhancements have also come; we test and identify bugs on millions of sites using pre-release versions of the core, which makes WordPress releases far more reliable for ordinary users and hosts. Even though many earn more from WordPress than from.coms, no corporation gives more than any other. Instead of merging MU, it would have been much simpler to fork the software. The majority of hosts (as well as many community members) without making even a small contribution to core. Ads cost hosts tens of millions of dollars annually. I'm under constant attack.

Automattic served as the temporary custodian of the WordPress trademarks until the WordPress Foundation was established in 2010, at which point Automattic transferred the trademarks to the Foundation. Mullenweg was given permission by the Foundation to use the WordPress trademark for as part of the transfer.

It seems that the firm is not interested in rebranding the platform, even if this trademark was purposefully purchased. This does not preclude from taking action to lessen the confusion that results from scraping the plugin directory. In the conversation, it was recommended that should refrain from indexing the sites they made for plugins that developers offered for free.

According to WordPress plugin developer Marco Almeida, you may manage SEO by instructing search engines to ignore those open source software development sites created for domain on domain.

Dotcom can assist by employing schema markup (using the "about" and/or "sameAs" properties) that references dotorg as the authoritative source. The schema markup is already present on the dotorg pages; all you have to do is point to them from dotcom. Dotcom also benefits from this. Despite Google

In order to better understand their user bases, developers who are only now realizing that their plugins have been copied and listed on also want to know how many of their installs originate from Mullenweg recommended that developers register for marketplace if they would prefer a distinct listing for users.

This may be the case, but as the plugin author, I have no idea how many installations are domains or how to present the plugin's features and description to user in a different manner. The directory cloning, in my opinion, is the primary problem here.

Tensions remained high as criticism flowed through Post Status Slack, X (Twitter), and other social channels during the intense conversation that lasted into the evening. Many developers discovered for the first time that their plugin listings on had been copied. Conflicts like these will persist as long as a for-profit organization uses the open source project's branding.

Here, there are several problems. One is that, although it states "Free on Business plan" on the dot com version, it is actually free. It gives the impression that dot com is offering it. Seems a little deceptive.

This is precisely what I was talking about with another user on Twitter a short while ago; the true problem isn't cloning in and of itself, but rather leveraging and reselling my free plugin as a resource for corporate users. In version, there is no link to the help page (I'm not sure if this will be visible to corporate users) or to read the reviews (maybe creating a new one?). Instead, the author's link is substituted with a search results page.

I concur. When people first see version, they find this puzzling.

This confuses me a little as, as a user, I always search directly at and have no idea what those on accomplish. Plugins were not permitted while I was using, however it appears that for at least sites, that has changed.

It is undoubtedly a problem that plug-in developers lack data, and I would assume that one aspect of the missing data that has to be restored is the comparison counts.

I don't have an opinion about the cloning per se; rather, my thoughts are focused on the replies, which highlight the stark differences between Automattic's and Matt's perceptions of appreciation and the true feelings of the active WordPress community. Its lack of respect and sensitivity in both directions. mostly as a result of the leadership team's appropriate governance approach, poor communication, and lack of openness.

It should be noted that redistribution is covered by the GPL. Matt is entirely correct, however he wears a lot of caps, and it's difficult and noticeable to wear them all at once. Like duplicating the entire representative since you built, maintained, and paid for it, or declaring a 100-year hosting plan at an Open Source conference because you funded the venue. He ought to have realized how delicate this might be. And you don't need to be an SEO guru to figure out that this would immediately rank in the top 3. Nameservers are still functional.

I suppose the leadership must close the gap in order to resolve everything. Reexamine the true definition of "open source." Does it all really have a true affect and be in control? Or is it just shrugging off the leadership and content to provide in the form of bugs, assistance, documentation, and community organization? And why are contributors feeling this way if my presumptions are wrong? Of sure, the community can help a little, but from what I've observed, patience and perseverance are required. Github tickets older than ten years are now considered an excellent addition. The Performance Team, an ultra-smart team, gets an offer they can't turn down—two years, such a fantastic result.

moreover the financial contribution's transparency. is more than the core software; despite all of its shortcomings, it accomplishes the goal. How much it costs to operate and maintain is beyond me. If Matts is upset about being appreciated for that (or the testing updates on, perhaps there hasn't been enough communication.

We also need to practice saying "thank you." It's obviously forbidden to do that. Since it's open source, you should naturally work for free and sponsor things here and there. Oh no, please. There is a breakdown in the gratitude, the communication surrounding thank-yous, and the mindset. You can probably predict what happens next: frustration.

Thus, in short, yes. I see why the cloning element is frustrating, and it's unfortunate that Matt feels attacked repeatedly. It is quite unfortunate. Thus, suppose I agreed to join the leadership group. My communication staff is the first thing I would clone—possibly treble it. The next governance mechanism is similar to the Drupal Board of Directors. (google it). Maybe after that, there won't be any drama, fresh starts, and open source tactics. Yes, that sounds like a great day.

I've had a lot of conversations at non-WordPress events, and most people are shocked to learn that WordPress is free. Everyone is advised to use WordPress since it is so popular, yet there is a lot of misunderstanding between and

I believe Automattic is purposefully abusing this at this time. It's not really about making the repository duplicated and exposing plugins. It's more about the deceptive and dishonest strategies, as David McCan also mentioned. The context surrounding the plugins has been modified from being free, open-source downloads to being available with the WordPress business plan.

It truly doesn't seem to me like copied the repository in order to increase the visibility of every plugin. They took this action to highlight the benefits of their Business subscription, which costs money in exchange for customers installing free plugins. In essence, they exploited stolen repo pages to promote every plugin as a feature or advantage of their business plan, neglecting to disclose or provide a link to where users can download and utilize the plugins free of charge.

They must be aware of the public confusion that exists between and, and instead of viewing this as a problem that jeopardizes and the larger WordPress community, they see an opportunity for profit.

I don't see why is hated so much. Though, to be honest, it's disappointing. They make excellent hosts. Although there aren't as many options as there once were, everyone's experience is improved in the end. The higher tiers, such as Business and Commerce, are actually very freaking cheap compared to the competition if you want to use plugins and other capabilities, and they don't restrict you to a particular number of visits or anything else. The performance is excellent. Compared to most other hosts, it's simpler to get going. Competitors in the ecosystem disparage a lot because of its advantage in terms of pricing, performance, and ease of use.

Since we live in a time of comfort and plenty, there is daily outrage about various insignificant issues. There isn't really an issue here other than pointing as the canonical source. Plugin developers are not negatively impacted by this.

Effective communication is lacking. It merely increases the general mistrust. However, it seems that we experience this kind of thing every few months.

Disagreements will arise in any group, etc. It's a positive thing. However, this is an illustration of something harmful. I believe this is an area where leadership can excel.

Things are banned on and other blogs of a similar nature because of moderating.

You cannot have a proper discussion even at WordCamps. You have every right to dispute someone's opinion and declare them to be incorrect. You might be expelled from that person's place if they are unable to take criticism.

Since all of the content originated, these should have canonical links going there.

I totally get why isn't ranking as highly on Google search as plugin listings, as expressed by developers. To make sure that users can simply access and select the appropriate plugins for their purposes, it is imperative to keep the playing field level. In order to improve plugin discovery's fairness and transparency, maybe this problem can be resolved. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention!

Whoa, that's a rather perplexing situation. Open source, in my opinion, shouldn't be utilized to support a firm that it will eventually fail. It looks like a case of Dolly the Goat.

Very perplexing situation. Open source, in my opinion, shouldn't be utilized to support a firm that it will eventually fail. It looks like a case of Dolly the Goat.

In the developer community, there are legitimate concerns about plugin listings outranking on Google Search, and I am one of these concerns. The official website for WordPress plugins,, is renowned for its openness and developer-friendly atmosphere.

When listings appear higher in search results than listings, it may cause confusion for users and jeopardize the reliability of plugins. Plugin developers put a lot of time and effort into their work, thus it's critical that they have fair visibility on reputable platforms.

Post a Comment