Why our reviews exist
Our goal is simple: help buyers make informed, confident decisions. Official directories and marketplaces often show uniformly high ratings—especially for new submissions—which can make it hard to tell strong, well-maintained themes from those that are merely new or flashy. We fill that gap with hands-on, criteria-based evaluations that prioritize practicality, accessibility, documentation quality, and long-term usability—not hype.
What we evaluate (and what we don’t)
A. Freshness of the UI (Weight: 15%)
What we look for: modern layout conventions, readable typography, spacing scale, dark mode and/or system color-scheme support, sensible animation/motion, responsive behavior across breakpoints, and adherence to current Ghost patterns.
How we decide: we compare against contemporary design baselines and UI heuristics (clarity, hierarchy, contrast, consistency). We favor practical modernity over trend-chasing.
B. Google PageSpeed Insights (Weight: 10%; Performance sub-score not counted)
What we record: Accessibility, Best Practices, and SEO sub-scores.
What we don’t count: the Performance sub-score, because it is heavily affected by demo hosting and network conditions outside a theme developer’s control. We may still comment on performance bottlenecks visible in code (e.g., render-blocking CSS/JS), but they don’t move the numeric rating.
C. WCAG Accessibility (Weight: 20%)
What we check: color contrast, focus states, keyboard navigability, semantic landmarks, alt text patterns, form labeling, and ARIA hygiene.
How we decide: we combine automated checks with manual spot-tests of key flows (home → post → signup, search, nav menus, pagination). Repeated A11y issues materially lower the rating; clean fundamentals are rewarded.
D. Standout Features (Weight: 15%)
What we look for: thoughtful features that genuinely help publishers—e.g., flexible home variants, smart post layouts, polished member flows, search UX, multilingual readiness, custom cards/components, integrations that are actually documented, and sane theme settings. We reward features that are implemented cleanly and sustainably (not just “checkbox” add-ons).
E. Developer Support & Attitude (Weight: 10%)
Scope: responsiveness, clarity of communication, civility, and willingness to help (limited to the interactions we’ve had, if any, plus what’s evident in public docs/FAQs/changelogs).
Important: we do not run “gotcha” tests or private stress-tests; this is a light-touch, good-faith read of professionalism.
F. Price-to-Value (Weight: 10%)
What we consider: license terms, update policy, what’s actually included, real feature depth (not just marketing bullets), and comparative value within the Ghost ecosystem. We ask: “Does the asking price feel fair for what you get now and for the maintenance you’ll likely need over time?”
G. Practicality (Weight: 10%)
What we consider: friction to get the advertised demos working (routes, collections, dynamic pages), sensible defaults, maintainability, and how well the theme aligns with common Ghost use-cases (blogs, magazines, creators, simple shops). A beautiful theme that’s hard to live with won’t score well here.
H. Ease of Use & Documentation (Weight: 10%)
What we look for: clear install and update steps, configuration instructions (routes.yaml, custom settings, feature toggles), screenshots/GIFs where helpful, and “troubleshooting” for common pitfalls. A tiny, outdated README hurts this score; great docs help a lot.
What never affects our ratings
- Affiliate relationships: We disclose affiliate links where applicable. Commission rates do not influence our verdicts. We routinely rate non-affiliate themes 4–5 ★ when they deserve it.
- Sponsorships / paid placements: Sponsored posts, if any, are labeled and do not affect star ratings.
- Developer pressure: We do not alter ratings in exchange for higher affiliate percentages, discounts, threats, or “special access”. Editorial independence is non-negotiable.
- Demo hosting speed: As noted, we don’t count PageSpeed “Performance” toward the score.
Our scoring model
We convert each criterion to a 0–5 internal sub-score, apply weights, and round the final result to the nearest star for public display.
Weights
- Freshness of UI — 15%
- PSI (A11y, Best Practices, SEO only) — 10%
- WCAG Accessibility — 20%
- Standout Features — 15%
- Dev Support & Attitude — 10%
- Price-to-Value — 10%
- Practicality — 10%
- Ease of Use & Documentation — 10%
Public star meanings:
- 5★ Exceptional in the category; polished, practical, and future-friendly.
- 4★ Strong overall with minor gaps; easy to recommend.
- 3★ Solid but with notable caveats; fit-dependent.
- 2★ Below expectations; significant compromises.
- 1★ Not recommended in current state.
Re-reviews & updates
Themes evolve. We occasionally re-review—especially after major releases, accessibility fixes, or substantial feature additions. We may adjust ratings up or down accordingly. If you’re a developer and shipped meaningful improvements, see “Corrections & appeals” below to request a faster re-review.
Corrections & appeals (for developers)
If you believe a rating or statement is outdated or inaccurate, contact us. Helpful submissions include:
- Theme name
- Changelog link and documentation links
- Demo/staging link showing the fix or new feature
- A brief note pointing to the specific part of our review you’re contesting
We’ll verify and, if warranted, update the review and/or rating. We do not accept “please raise the rating” requests without substantive changes or evidence.
Independence & editorial policy
- No pay-for-play. We won’t alter, withhold, or sweeten ratings in exchange for money, affiliate rate bumps, or favors.
- Sponsored ≠ favored. Sponsorships (when present) are labeled and have zero bearing on star ratings.
- No removals on demand. We do not delist themes at a developer’s request. All theme listings contains developer's logos (only for identification, nominative fair usage) and theme snapshots captured by us from publicly available demo websites.
- Civility counts. Attempts to coerce changes (legal threats without merit, harassment, or “quid-pro-quo” offers) may result in refusal to list or review future products and publicly disclosing such requests/actions.
For legal details, see our Editorial & DMCA/Takedown Policies
Practical notes on measurements
- Environment variance: PSI outputs and automated A11y checks can vary by run. We mitigate by repeating critical tests and combining automation with human judgment.
- Subjectivity acknowledged: Design taste is subjective; we lean on practicality, clarity, and current UI norms rather than personal aesthetics. When a call is subjective, we say so.
- Scope limits: We review what’s documented and demonstrable. We don’t speculate about roadmap features or private builds.
Developer support & attitude—how we assess it
We don’t run “support traps.” Instead, we consider: clarity and tone of documentation, public changelog cadence, and any real interactions we’ve had (if any). A developer who communicates clearly, fixes issues, and treats users respectfully will fare better. Lack of interaction does not automatically penalize you; negative behavior does.
Price-to-value—what tips the scale
Good value indicators: long-term update policy, clear license terms, real feature depth, quality docs, and reliable maintenance.
Red flags: paywalled basics, vague update promises, heavy undocumented dependencies, or marketing features that don’t materialize in practice.
Contact us
Found a mistake, shipped a fix, or want us to re-check a feature? Reach out via the email listed on our site. Please include version numbers and links so we can verify quickly. Clearly mention the features you want us to check.