[TYPO3-typo3org] "Sites made with TYPO3"

[Daniel Hinderink]

Done.

the notification entries show that the restriction to registered users 
work really well.

There are two pages that got several notifications that also deserved 
them (non-TYPO3 or offline), like a blank test entry and a non-TYPO3 
site (already removed)

Almost all the rest are people that sent notifications about their own 
websites, I guess for testing purposes.

There are some that don't seem to have a reason when I checked those 
websites, but that is less than 5%. I think that is tolerable.

I think that is a clear indicator that when we want responsible action, 
we need to restrict to logged-in users.

Vice versa, if we want mass participation, we need to make sure it has 
some individual benefit while making sure it is not harming others.

I guess Amazon knows that too but relies on pure mass, or just doesn't 
care about the quality of the ratings.

cheers

Daniel




Daniel Hinderink schrieb:
> sorry, hit the wrong shortcut, still number-crunching...
> 
> cheers
> 
> d
> 
> 
> Daniel Hinderink schrieb:
>> Some more social data engineering:
>>
>> Here is the list of notifications about sites being non-TYPO3 or 
>> offline since that function was made private. The number exptedly 
>> dropped quite a bit:
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hinderink schrieb:
>>> 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
>>>>> >> >
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>