Menu
WordPress developer and trainer. He reviews ImageSEO’s guides for technical accuracy.
Maxime Bernard-Jacquet is a WordPress developer and trainer who has worked with WordPress since 2009. He co-founded WPChef, a training organisation that teaches WordPress to professionals, and founded Capitaine WP, which supports agencies building on WordPress. His WordPress.org identity is maximebj.
He is not an employee of ImageSEO and has no commercial stake in it. He reviews these guides as an outside specialist, which is the point: the person checking our claims about WordPress should not be the person selling the plugin.
Maxime was a user of ImageSEO before he ever reviewed anything for us. In a public review on WordPress.org he wrote:
This plugin is amazing, it saves a lot of time by optimizing image names and alt with precision. People always forget to rename pics and set alt (important for SEO and accessibility) or they do it wrong. This plugin takes care of everything!
— maximebj, 5-star review on WordPress.org
That review is public and checkable, and it is why we asked him rather than someone else: he already knew the problem the plugin solves, from the side of the person doing the work.
He reviews our guides for technical accuracy about WordPress and image SEO: whether what we describe actually matches how WordPress handles media, whether the steps work in a real installation, and whether a recommendation still holds in the current version. Topics in his remit include alt text, image filenames and titles, media library handling, image sitemaps, compression and modern formats, and Open Graph images.
Each review is a read-through against four questions. Does this match how WordPress actually behaves today? Would following these steps produce the described result in a real site? Is any claim stated more strongly than the evidence supports? And is anything out of date against the current WordPress or plugin version?
If a review turns something up, it is corrected before his name goes on the guide. That is the standard we hold ourselves to, not a record of work already done.
He does not review our pricing, our marketing claims, or our commercial pages. He holds no certification that we present as a qualification, and we make no such claim for him. His review covers technical accuracy only — it is not a guarantee of search results, and nothing on this site is a promise of ranking.
A reviewer is named on a page only after they have actually read it, and only for the kind of accuracy they can genuinely judge. We do not add a name retroactively to pages someone has not seen, and we do not describe a technical review as an endorsement of the product’s commercial claims.
Where a guide has been reviewed, it says so on the page, with the month of review. Where it has not, it says nothing.
These are the guides he has read and signed off. The list grows only as reviews genuinely happen.
Found something in a guide that does not match how WordPress behaves? Tell us — corrections are logged and the guide is updated.
