[TYPO3-typo3org] "Sites made with TYPO3"
daniel at typo3.org
Wed May 7 14:32:30 CEST 2008
> Any idea of what they would charge for that, of course we could also do
> it ourselves. I think the idea is very good lets brainstorm a bit more
> on it.
Check with them directly please.
> I think the idea should be that only brands that are listed in the
> Top100 ranking from Millward can be added to the top brands list.
I am not that impressed with Millward Brown's ranking method (which is
pretty opaque) to make it our reference. Additionally our main market is
still D/A/CH. Brands like SIXT make for good references here, but are
not represented in the US.
So I guess we have to find another yard stick, or better still, somebody
to trust on such a matter.
> way we could do it is that we have a field that is optional in the
> reference form that says Millward ranking with a link to the current PDF
> for people to look up if their project is on the Top100 list and on what
> position. When someone fills out this field an e-mail gets send to
> someone suitable (I could do it without a problem but maybe also more
> than one person so it gets done quickly) saying that they added a
> listing, then the person can check if the position they put in is real
> or not and confirm it if it is.
I don't think we need a function like that. Just somebody with enough
judgement checking the new additions will do.
> I like the idea of putting the newest top brand sites at the top as long
> as only Top 100 sites appear there and when you click on more you get
> them listed in the actual ranking order from Millward.
> Any other ideas to that? The only issue I see is that when the new
> ranking comes out the values are not valid anymore so there I would
> suggest a mechanism where the person that checks the rankings can send
> out an e-mail blast to all people that have a top brand ranking to ask
> them to check if their Millward ranking id is still correct. Any better
If there are two rankings, and I certainly don't want to loose the
community ranking (!), I believe we can keep what we already have for
the community picks and simply add the second without having to touch
> Best Regards
> "Daniel Hinderink" <daniel at typo3.org> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1.1210085834.21371.typo3-team-typo3org at lists.netfielders.de:
>> Hi Kian,
>> I think the best solution is to introduce a second ranking box, keeping
>> the existing one as the "community picks" and a second one with "best
>> Obviously Brands are selected by hand, much like the reference List on
>> .com. Brands are generally not hard to choose, simply go by brand value
>> (Milward Brown and Interbrand publish rankings annually) and/or share
>> price/market value.
>> That would still require someone suitable to maintain that list. Within
>> that list, the ranking should be chronologically, with last additions on
>> top. On the bottom it could link to a "top brands"-listing page.
>> Care to sponsor pixelrund to do this, or ask them to do it yourself?
>> The community picks now show the average rating. It could be changed to
>> the total sum of stars, which would also be worth considering.
>> Kian T. Gould schrieb:
>> > Hi guys
>> > Thanks a lot for this new extension which was IMHO very overdue. I
>> > the features are getting there now but after a first trial we noticed a
>> > major flaw of the system, which is the voting ability. We added our
>> > largest and most complex reference CISCO Systems to the list, which is
>> > currently definitely the biggest reference on the list because so far
>> > mostly small projects were added and what happened? It was voted
>> down by
>> > a lot of people that added small projects and voted for them themselves
>> > and is now not even under the Top sites anymore. When a potential
>> > corporation interested in using TYPO3 sees these Top sites, they
>> > probably would think that TYPO3 is a small community platform and not
>> > suitable for their needs and rather turn to other systems which is
>> > exactly what we don't want with a system like this. This way again we
>> > have an unqualified listing of references that has some more info
>> but is
>> > in no way more differenciating than the old system.
>> > There are two sites there right now that deserve to be their IMHO,
>> > being fotobuch AG and Tourismus Hamburg (and CISCO of course :-) ) but
>> > the rest is really not a great presentation of the TYPO3 power.
>> > Therefore I would like to open the discussion to ideas and suggestions
>> > how a voting process could be done in a way that the Top sites are
>> > really representations of the power of TYPO3 and not a result of voting
>> > manipulation. If you totally don't agree with me please also give your
>> > input, maybe I am looking at this from the wrong perspective.
>> > Best Regards
>> > Kian
More information about the TYPO3-team-typo3org