Paragon: The hunt for the best Plone add-ons is on!

Nope, it's not "Strictly come Ploning", "The Great Plone Bake-Off", or any of the big TV shows. But it is the start of the search for the very best in Plone add-ons!

Read all about the goals, rules, criteria and the jury at http://paragon.plone.org

But more important: start thinking about which add-ons you would recommend to your friends and colleagues, and start nominating!

Ideally, you'd prepare a few screenshots of your candidate(s) in action, and the links to where it can be found. Remember: you don't have to be the author of an add-on to nominate. In fact, we'd much rather hear from the actual users, integrators and administrators that have seen add-ons in action over the years on their own sites.
Although as product author you're of course also invited to nominate your own creations!

http://paragon.plone.org is where it's at... What are you waiting for?

2 Likes

I like the fact you are trying to solve this giant issue of Plone: it's very difficult for Plone users to find great add-on.

We already have the rating feature on plone.org/products but:

  • few people use it
  • less that few people load add-ons on plone.org

Still: I fear this will not lead to something. I mean: 3 days has passed and only three packages has been nominated (PloneFormGen came from me :slight_smile: )

Now some technical report. After saving the form you must click another link ("Submit this addon for consideration") that is not very visible.

Goes to how interested people are in marketing their stuff. I have a few relatively popular add-ons but have not had the time yet to write anything up on them for this...

Well, it's early days, and it was a holiday in the USA. Trust me to repeatedly spam/tweet/poke the community :wink:

Maybe we should make clearer that the upcoming new plone.org will NOT have the PSC section any more (that code is older than the egyptian mummies, and at least as scary...);

it will have links to PyPi, but the Top 50 add-ons will be featured; http://paragon.plone.org comes with a handy json export to have them show up in other sites...

Now that's motivation for add-on authors & users to start nominating, isn't it?

As for the functional question, I'll have a look, or ask the mighty @pbauer if he can fix it before I can...

I styled the submit-link to be more in-your-face. @polyester: can you please update? And: I have about 40 addons from the preliminary shortlist that I'd like to nominate if nobody else will.

1 Like

I'm thinking about things to submit :slight_smile:

I hope plone.org will handle some sort of smart redirect from plone.org/products/something to pypi (or paragon!).

c.documentviewer has saved my butt and would like to nominate it but when I saw all the product info required I back out. Lazy, I know, but if you'd like non product owners to contribute you might want to rethink the list of required fields.

@mikemets the 'really required' ones are PyPi URL, github URL, and summary. All the others default to "I don't know"...

By the way, you can now have a visual editor while entering your summary.
Duh, on a site where you can submit without being logged in, it kind of makes sense to feed tinymce javascript to non-logged in users. (hangs head in shame...)

Remember kids: always test your site with two browsers, one logged in and one not logged in

So long as you don't submit your nomination, it can be publicly edited. So,
start up the nomination, then socialize the effort by getting others to
fill in the details. A flattered package manager might even be willing to
help complete the nomination.

1 Like

@polyester Agreed, it was really the Summary that threw me. I want to put in my use case and reason why I'm nominating it, not a summary of the product's features. Is that ok?

@mikemets. Sure, you don't have to make a complete summary of the add-on. A description of your use-case, and why it actually helps you in practice. is much more useful for the jury.

Writing a complete summary of the features is something (hopefully) the author will provide in the documentation; it's definitely more the real-life usefulness that we're after to hear.

If you can provide a link to the add-on in action on your site, bonus karma points!

(That may be impossible if it's an intranet, but if it's a public site that's a real nice thing to recommend an add-on. If it is on an intranet, maybe a screenshot of the add-on is possible/allowable)