[TYPO3-typo3org] "Sites made with TYPO3"

[Daniel Hinderink]

hi Kian,

Kian T. Gould schrieb:
> Hi Daniel
> 
> In my opinion the idea of this top brand listing should be that when a 
> big company comes to the TYPO3.org listing, they can see that TYPO3 is 
> not a system that is only useful for small community websites and 
> homepages but they can see that it is a full enterprise class CMS and 
> there are references their proofing it. 


You are assuming that this kind of customer is visiting this site.

I think the much more likely scenario is that developers thinking about 
using TYPO3 are looking at this site. Also sales people from agencies 
might take a look (new and existing TYPO3 service providers alike).

To the developers the brands are interesting, but what is even more 
interesting is what you can _do_ with this software.

So a rating that has more facets seems like a good solution.

1. features
2. design
3. brand

in no particular order would be possible criteria that are easy enough 
to understand. To excell in the features department, users must describe 
the features in the text, which is a good thing too.


Therefore I thought that its
> important that the top brands are really top brands and that they are 
> display in a way that there are always real top brands on that list, but 
> who determines what a top brand is, if its not through some kind of 
> ranking method.


As I said: somebody (not me, but may be you?) does the job of assigning 
references the brand flag. Then they are listed either chronologically 
(last additions on top) or on the basis of their average ratings (see 
3.rd above).

> Are you aware of any European rankings for company / brand values?


Again, they are not comprehensive. Here we have something that takes 
human judgement, all other solutions don't work I think.

> I 
> agree with your concern about using an anglo-american ranking for TYPO3.


It's fine if it is not the only one and just a hint, but not the reference.

Finally just going for companies on the stock exchange, like somebody 
proposed, leaves out tons of great brands. Think of Schwan-STABILO or 
any NGO like Greenpeace.

cheers

Daniel


> 
> Regards
> Kian
> 
> 
> "Daniel Hinderink" <daniel at typo3.org> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.1.1210163550.11547.typo3-team-typo3org at lists.netfielders.de:
> 
>> Hi Kian,
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> So the
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>> http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/Optimor/Media/Pdfs/en/BrandZ/BrandZ-2
>> 008-Report.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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why that?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> > ideas?
>>
>>
>> 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
>> the first.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Best Regards
>> > Kian
>> >
>> > "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
>> >> brands".
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> cheers
>> >>
>> >> Daniel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Kian T. Gould schrieb:
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Hi guys
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks a lot for this new extension which was IMHO very overdue. I
>>
>> >> think
>>
>> >> > 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,
>>
>> >> those
>>
>> >> > 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
>> >> >
>>
>> >
>