Remove the FUD warning about issues caused by 3rd party plugins

[gnotaras]

Hello,

I am the developer of the Add-Meta-Tags WordPress plugin and it has been brought to my attention that your plugin displays a very general and confusing warning that Add-Meta-Tags might cause issues to your plugin.

The warning is way too general. It is way too confusing. It's not informative at all. My assumption is that it's there to scare people. Genuine FUD.

I am tempted to ask: what kind of issues does your plugin detect and decides to issue a warning about other installed and activated plugins?

I am very skeptical about whether such tactics violate the WordPress Developer Guidelines or not. Definitely there has to be a serious discussion about this with people from Automattic.

I hereby request that no such general and confusing warning is displayed about Add-Meta-Tags in future releases of you plugin, unless it is accompanied by detailed information about how the simultaneous use of the two plugins might cause technical or other conflicts.

My suggestion is to stop displaying general FUD warnings about 3rd party plugins.

How would it look like if Add-Meta-Tags issued a FUD warning about your plugin? It's ridiculous.

George Notaras

[Rarst]

From your plugin's name alone I guessed it's likely because of overlapping functionality. The nuance of pointing specific reason isn't currently technically implemented, but there are some broad categories of issues internally in code. I agree this might be worth pointing out in the message.

My assumption is that it's there to scare people. Genuine FUD.

Why would WP SEO need to scare anyone about it?.. In my opinion providing information on plugin conflicts is preferable to letting them silently happen.

I am very skeptical about whether such tactics violate the WordPress Developer Guidelines or not.

To my knowledge they are not. I don't see any rules in guidelines, relevant to informational messages even in general.

Definitely there has to be a serious discussion about this with people from Automattic.

Automattic is not (explicitly) involved in running WordPress repositories. Of course we would be open to hear from WP org plugins team if they have any issue with the practice.

Unfortunately these days I don't closely follow things with official repositories and don't know who would be appropriate person to ping for it.

[gnotaras]

Hello and thanks for your reply.

'overlapping functionality' is a very confusing term. People might think that functionality might be taken away from your plugin, which is not the case, so let's use 'similar features'.

'similar features' are not a reason valid enough to justify a warning that plugin X might cause issues to your plugin. Technically, 'similar features' cause absolutely zero issues to your plugin as long as the developer guidelines are followed. Sure, if similar features are enabled in multiple plugins, search engines could be confused, but this is hardly an issue caused to your plugin.

In this regard, adding a note that enabling similar features in multiple SEO plugins might confuse search engines and have unexpected results SEO wise would be absolutely logical and far from being a problem for anyone. But warning people that other plugins with similar features might cause issues to YOUR plugin is outrageously invalid.

but there are some broad categories of issues internally in code.

Are you saying that Add-Meta-Tags contains code that causes issues internally to your plugin? At least this is what I understand... I would be very interested to know in detail what exactly you are talking about.

As far as Add-Meta-Tags is concerned, the 'amt_' prefix is used for all functions, classes, global variables, constants since the beginning of its development on January 2006, and, since several years ago, the '_amt' prefix is used for custom fields. AMT is an abbreviation of Add-Meta-Tags, so I don't really see anything overlapping your plugin's code here.

So, practically, issuing a warning that a 3rd party plugin, which prefixes everything in its code, is causing issues to your plugin does not really make any sense. It's quite the opposite that is happening I might say.

The nuance of pointing specific reason isn't currently technically implemented

This is your problem and does not justify issuing general and confusing warnings.

Why would WP SEO need to scare anyone about it?..

Overlapping interests I might say.

In my opinion providing information on plugin conflicts is preferable to letting them silently happen.

You should really use terms that make sense, or please explain in detail what 'plugin conflicts' refers to.

The real problem is that you do not provide any information about any conflict at all. You just warn people in a general manner about issues! You spread 100% invalid and confusing information.

To my knowledge they are not. I don't see any rules in guidelines, relevant to informational messages even in general. Unfortunately these days I don't closely follow things with official repositories and don't know who would be appropriate person to ping for it.

The fact that there is currently no specific guideline about not spreading FUD about third party plugins does not mean that spreading FUD is something that should take place.

There has to be a serious discussion about the applicable cases and what kinds of warnings or informational messages developers can issue about 3rd party plugins. If the current guidelines do not clearly cover such cases, they have to be updated.

My request still stands: Please do not display any FUD messages about Add-Meta-Tags in future releases of your plugin. Never again issue a message that implies that Add-Meta-Tags might cause technical issues to your plugin or affect your plugin's features, unless you provide detailed information how this might happen. Spreading confusion about Add-Meta-Tags to WordPress users is completely unacceptable.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. If you feel that you have to explain the parts of your message I found confusing, please do.

But above all, please make sure this is 100% resolved in the next releases of your plugin, because I do not have enough time to waste dealing with user confusion as a result of your FUD warnings.

Kind Regards, George Notaras

[Rarst]

Are you saying that Add-Meta-Tags contains code that causes issues internally to your plugin?

Sorry for being unclear. What I meant was that in WP SEO compatibility check your plugin is placed into a broad category of open_graph conflicts. There is no more individual information per plugin available to provide in a message at the moment.

There has to be a serious discussion about the applicable cases and what kinds of warnings or informational messages developers can issue about 3rd party plugins. If the current guidelines do not clearly cover such cases, they have to be updated.

As I mentioned that would be up to WP org plugin team, you can bring it to their attention. I do not feel WP SEO issue tracker is productive channel for WordPress org policy discussion.

But above all, please make sure this is 100% resolved in the next releases of your plugin

If and when project leads make a decision to adjust this behavior, it will be implemented as part of ongoing development.

[gnotaras]

_FYI, I did not open this issue for policy discussion._

in WP SEO compatibility check your plugin is placed into a broad category of open_graph conflicts.

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? What compatibility checks do you perform? What are 'open_graph conflicts'? How similar features of other plugins affect your plugin's functionality?

If and when project leads make a decision to adjust this behavior, it will be implemented as part of ongoing development.

This is not good enough my friend.

Please, stop confusing Add-Meta-Tags users and wasting my time by spreading FUD warnings about conflicts without providing the necessary detailed information.

Instead, I suggest that you add an informational message for your users explaining that enabling similar features in multiple plugins might not have the expected SEO results. It is really that simple.

Over and out.

[Rarst]

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about?

There is an array key for a list of plugins, literally called open_graph in respective code https://github.com/Yoast/wordpress-seo/blob/660e2750c07bf7ab47e407256c7ef06a98a33149/admin/class-plugin-conflict.php#L22

[gnotaras]

In other words, you have somehow managed to convince yourselves that every other plugin that generates Opengraph meta tags constitutes a conflict with your plugin. I seriously doubt that you have identified a single conflict in code within any of those plugins! You put them in a list, called it "compatibility check" and started issuing warnings to WordPress users about general conflicts driving them to think that other plugins affect your plugin's functionality! That's ridiculous!

And apart from being ridiculous, such tactics have a name. They are collectively called FUD.

Remove Add-Meta-Tags from that list ASAP. Stop spreading FUD.

[gnotaras]

I just tested your plugin with Add-Meta-Tags. This is by far more _serious_ than I had initially thought.

Your warning that is displayed to users:

The following plugins might cause (open graph) issues with Yoast WordPress SEO: Add Meta Tags

Not only this ridiculous warning is displayed when your plugin is activated, but also after the activation of EVERY other plugin in the WordPress platform!

You spread confusion and false information about undefined open graph issues. Since no conflicts which affect your plugin's functionality have been identified, this warning constitutes false information that is spread deliberately. As far as I know, such activities are considered as an act of deception worldwide and there are by far more robust rules than the WordPress Developer Guidelines that govern such activities.

Similar features among WordPress plugins is not an issue that affects your plugin in any way imaginable and does not give you any legal or ethical right to issue a warning about undefined conflicts.

If you have identified specific conflicts in code which affect your plugin's functionality, add this information to your warnings or discard your idiotic "conflict" detection functionality altogether.

Remove Add-Meta-Tags from the aforementioned list ASAP. Stop spreading disinformation to Add-Meta-Tags users.

[gnotaras]

Since none of the replies above deals with the core of my concerns, chances are that there will be no reply that makes sense. So, there is no point in following this issue any more.

My point of view and especially my requests have been made clear in the most detailed way.

I expect nothing less than full compliance with my request. There is zero tolerance for FUD.

I had the information about the confusing FUD warning in your plugin a while ago, but I did not pay proper attention. I was wrong.

Apparently, there is a conflict of interest between developers of web site optimization plugins, especially in cases in which a whole business has been set up around a WordPress plugin.

Nevertheless, this gives no ethical or legal right to anyone to cause damages to the reputation of other plugins and their copyright holders by intentionally spreading false information or by generally committing actions that fall into the category of deception.

I'd like to let you know that the public source code of all popular web site optimization plugins for WordPress, including yours, is now scanned on a regular basis for references to Add-Meta-Tags. Moreover, the world wide web is now monitored for references to the Add-Meta-Tags plugin. Any potential incidents of spreading false information, suspicious linking from spam/malware/phishing web sites or any other organized effort to damage Add-Meta-Tags in an unlawful way will be thoroughly investigated to the maximum extent and all options of exercising my legal rights will be explored regardless of the required time and money and without warning or notice.

Thanks for your co-operation in the resolution of this issue.

[jdevalk]

Hi @gnotaras. You're right. The notice is somewhat confusing. I've just spent some time making it more comprehensible and descriptive for users. This is what it will look like as of release 2.1:

Note that we had, and will always have, the best interest of the user in mind. We are not saying anything about your plugin that isn't true. Therefore, I will ignore all your remarks about things being unlawful.

[gnotaras]

Hello,

Ignoring or not, it does not really make a difference. Having your users or clients in mind does not grant any extra rights.

You have decided to warn users about things that are not your property. This is fine. But you have to do it right. Otherwise, ethical and more importantly legal issues can be raised very easily.

The message as shown above is not confusing for the majority of users.

However, users might still be confused by it. I'd suggest that you keep a free channel of communication open at all times for user concerns regarding your warning messages in which 3rd party plugins are mentioned. People emailing others asking them to explain what YOUR warnings mean, due to the fact that you cannot be reached, is totally unacceptable. It clearly shows you are doing it wrong. I'd suggest that a link to such a communications channel is added in the warning itself or in the screen to which the 'Configure WordPress SEO's OpenGraph Settings' button (as shown above) leads.

Another aspect of your warnings is them being an annoyance and a distraction of the users workflow. As far as references to my plugin are concerned, I'd suggest that a mechanism that disables these warnings (entirely or on a per 3rd party plugin basis) exists within the warning popup or in the screen to which the 'Configure WordPress SEO's OpenGraph Settings' button (as shown above) leads.

Problems raised by warnings about 3rd party assets have been resolved a long time ago. As I have explained above, I won't be filing any more bug reports about issues that are raised as a result of your warnings mechanism. I have a strong belief that you know exactly how such warning systems need to be implemented so as not to raise any legal or ethical issues.

All my remarks above should be treated as mere suggestions and not as consent or as conditions the fulfillment of which constitutes approval of your methods.

[jdevalk]

Having your users or clients in mind does not grant any extra rights.

I wasn't saying that. If you're going to take the tone you do, you should really learn to read better first.

We are not saying anything about your plugin that isn't true. Therefore, I will ignore all your remarks about things being unlawful.

That's what I said.

Your remarks about people emailing you about our plugin are funny. We created these warnings because we get emails from people asking us why our plugin doesn't work, and we figured out other plugins, like yours, were conflicting.

Trust me. Having built this plugin and a few others myself and maintained them and done all the support up until 1,5 years ago myself, I know what it's like to get email. We are very reachable, in fact we have a 24/7 support team handling email, for our paid customers. It's the only way to go when you've reached our levels of scale as otherwise we'd go bankrupt.

We're solving a user problem. That our plugin is amongst the top 3 most installed plugins for WordPress and thus we have some shared users with your plugin is to be expected. This places a burden on both of us to do what's right for our users.

I also want to let you know that I expect a comment from you on this thread, stating that nothing we are doing is illegal in any way. The allegations you're making are libellous and I don't take that lightly. After that comment I'll close this thread and consider this dealt with and thank you for your instigation to make our message more clear.

[gnotaras]

I don't understand why such a comment is to be expected. I haven't stated that anything is illegal. I am not a judge. Instead, I've filed this bug report in order to raise awareness of the legal and ethical issues that could be raised by the current implementation of your warnings mechanism.

Providing replies like the following (for which I do not blame Rarst) for something you are clearly doing wrong is in my opinion not the ideal way to deal with issues like the current:

If and when project leads make a decision to adjust this behavior, it will be implemented as part of ongoing development.

It is an undisputed fact that a mechanism that issues warnings, which contain references to things that are not your property, could raise numerous legal and ethical issues, if not done correctly. It should be quite self-explanatory why this happens.

As for whether users of your plugin have emailed me or not in order to express their concerns and confusion about how their platforms might be affected if both plugins are activated, it might be better if you asked them how they would rate the quality of your current warnings, if they find them confusing and if you were reachable over a free channel so they could express their concerns and find further information.

Since warnings appear in the free versions of your plugin, a free communications channel would be expected in order the users to be able to express their concerns or request further information about those warnings. If this is such a big issue, you could additionally set up web pages containing FAQ and more details and information about your warnings. You have to find a way to deal with a problem that you create; the confused users that is.

If dealing with the users that are confused by your own warnings is a burden for you, then make the warnings mechanism a paid feature or discard it altogether. The large scale of your operations is not a valid reason that justifies the fact that you warn users about 3rd party plugins while at the same time they cannot find more information about those warnings.

In order to end this discussion, I will state the following.

Your warnings mechanism, as it is currently implemented, could raise legal and ethical issues as it leads users think that other plugins affect your plugin's functionality which is not true in any way imaginable.

However, I recognize the fact that your primary concern is the best user experience. I also recognize your interest in improving the current warnings mechanism in upcoming versions of your plugin.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a strong belief that you know exactly what needs to be done in order to create an effective warnings mechanism and avoid user confusion.

[jdevalk]

We're dealing with a confused user problem that's far bigger than the problem you think you have. That's exactly what these notices do. Other plugins can, and regularly do, interfere with our plugin's functionality: your plugin, for instance, outputs code that could overwrite our meta tags. This might not cause PHP errors, but it does cause behavior that is not what the user wanted. That is what I call interfering with our functionality. If you think that's nonsense, you're part of the problem, not of the solution, which, to be honest, you're legalese here has been all the time.

Also, "a free communications channel would be expected" is absolute nonsense. Based on what rule?

To your remark "You have to find a way to deal with a problem that you create" I can say just this: we're not creating the problem, we're trying to prevent the user from having one. If that causes you to get some emails, sucks for you. I think our new notice will work better. We'll improve them to be persistent and not just show once, but allow the user to dismiss them. If this leads to a decline in your plugins usage, again: sucks for you.

Fact of the matter is, our plugins "compete" for the same meta data. Having both installed is not beneficial. We're trying to let our users know that this is the case. I'm now closing this issue for further comments.