@Joseph Balderson A good example for me would constitute of a simple application that is an end-to-end one, like a school class record / grading system, etc. Something that would really be easy for people to follow, yet explores the power of what flex offers.
In my mind, one good example would be like a school grading application, with both a web and mobile component. The web component would be used to administer student grades, etc. and the mobile component would be used by parents or students themselves to see their grades and evaluations. That would be a start. I have other thoughts on what to build, but I'd like something really easy for people to follow and continually build up with. Of course, that application would be further polished based on feedback and other inputs. I believe that Flex, for me is the best way to do enterprise applications, used in corporation and organizations. And when we have setup some examples focusing on what businesses do, then more people will see that adopting Flex would be a wise investment after all. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Stephane Beladaci < adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Angelo, I totally agree with your point! The time when it was all about the > domain, title and tags is long gone. It is funny you mention that, because > I was going to add to my previous email that a shorter domain with just > flex might be better because of the higher ratio of "flex" compared to the > total length, but I did not want to comment on something I'm not sure > about. > > Joseph, my 2 cents: I think JoeFlash.com would be actually even better > because at the end the Flash brand is way, like way more recognized by both > search algorithms and people. "Flex" is not identified to Apache Flex at > all. In addition, adding Apache might be a risky game because Apache is > super popular, and it might take over some Flex for some algorithms, so you > would end up being confused with Apache stuff that has nothing to do with > Flex. It happens in jobs forums all the time for instance, I myself never > use Apache anymore. > > You should ask the guys at Moz.com, they know their stuff, tell them it's > not for profit, and you need an advice, they will help you. > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Angelo Anolin <angelo.ano...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I hope that we don't get too hung up on the domain name issue, but > rather, > > collectively put in energy to provide good examples that our target > > audience would find feasible to apply in their endeavours (devs, > > enterprise, etc.). > > > > Kindly correct me if I am wrong, but search algorithms not only depend on > > the domain name to rank page searches to provide relevant results. Once > > good and usable examples and content using Apache Flex has already been > > setup, people wanting to get more info and sample on Flex would likely > > stumble over to the samples page. And when people get more relevant > > information about the sample sites, the likelihood that it would rank > > higher on search pages. > > > > Let us give the people the better choice to deliver web and windows based > > applications by demonstrating what Flex can do and has evolved into. > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Scott Guthmann < > > sc...@on3softwaredevelopment.com> wrote: > > > > > >Just for the record: I hate it when the rules get in the way of good > > > intentions. That's not what the rules are intended for, IMHO. The rules > > > should be there to avoid abuse, not to discourage use... > > > >EdB > > > > > > Erik is right in my opinion. We must balance the need for the Apache > > > Software Foundation to defend ownership of the brand and protect > > software > > > developers and other stakeholders from being fooled, yet allow > commercial > > > services providers to market and sell their services. I do not think > that > > > there is a risk today, of *too much* encouragement for those few (those > > > reading this message) who still build applications and sell services > with > > > Apache Flex. We should be as lenient as we can with developers and > > > providers who are still with us. > > > > > > >>I would imagine that in the end you will want to use "Flex" somewhere > > in > > > the domain name and this disclaimer will be required. However, I'm not > > > sure it will be sufficient to allow you to use "apache" in the >>domain > > > name. Another issue is, if someone else wants to start their own site > of > > > examples, they don't have a level playing field as the > apacheflexexamples > > > domain name just sounds more "official" and will look >>more official > in > > > search results. ... > > > > > > This ^^ provides the specific example of what *not* to do - > ...an > > > "abusive example" that Erik described above. When the domain name > appears > > > to be "official" and someone is likely to be fooled, then the domain > name > > > should not be used. "JoeFlash.com", "JoeFlex.org", > Apache-Joe-Flex.com", > > > "Flextras.biz", even "Apache-Flex-tras.biz" allow the service provider > to > > > use a keyword rich domain name, yet do not appear to be "official" to > > me. > > > These examples are just clever services providers trying to earn a > > living, > > > IMO. > > > > > > If the domain the commercial interest is evaluating has "Apache" + > "Flex" > > > + ".org" in the URL being registered, the services provider should not > > > register the domain & pick another domain that is clever, clear, and > > > unlikely to be confused with what ASF owns. > > > > > >
