|CMS for Portal with more than 10000 articles|
CMS, portal, news
| 10:40 am on Jan 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I am trying to build new portal. current is made in Joomla and it is catastrofic ... it is too slow, to much problems with statistics and everything ... Joomla is surely not good option for big news portal ...
In start, it was wonderful, but customizing it after is too complicated, and what is my biggest problem, template system is really heavy, SEF is not as I wanted... only thing I like is mosimage mambot from it ... but now, 5 months after, 7000 articles published and more than 25000 pictures uploaded, we cannot get around it any more ... pictures are all stacked in one folder, then subfolders .. don't have design solution to keep up with posted pictures ... all content is not as manageable as it sould be ... statistics are different with 3 different statistics monitors (google, webalizer, and joomlastats), i am loosing visitors...
sooooo.... :) i want to build it from scratch ... and I am considering expression engine ... anyone have any advice?
| 10:49 am on Jan 8, 2008 (gmt 0)|
one word: DRUPAL.
Scary at first but nothing short of amazing and very fast peer support. They even have cck where you can design your own database in seconds. I have never seen anything like Drupal
| 12:54 am on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Yup, I'm loving Drupal too.
Keep in mind, though, that it's a MySQL hog. So you may find it sluggish if you're not on a VPS or (ideally) a dedicated server. But if you have 10k articles you're probably way beyond shared servers already. =)
Perhaps the thing I like best about Drupal -- other than the simplicity for a non-programmer like me and the large community of users -- is the Taxonomy system which will REALLY help you categorize your articles in a way that makes it easy for users to find the stuff they care about.
Plus the latest (dev) release of the Ad module *finally* lets users manage affiliate ads (Commission Junction, Amazon) in a powerful way. *drool*
| 10:09 am on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
sluggish ... was that one of the comments?
I heard a lot about drupal ... but must admit I have found a lot of articled that say drupal is not for high traffic sites ... I have joomla for inastance ... and I spent too much time on optimizing site ... and i mean TOO much ...
drupal is not an option ... I heard a lot about it ... and this is site with 22000 unique visitors per day ... and almost 10.000.000 hits/day ... and drupal is in those conditions same as joomla ..
what do you think abour expression engine?
| 1:03 pm on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>> but must admit I have found a lot of articled that say drupal is not for high traffic sites
you mean like Mtv.com, New Yorker, Lifetime, Fox etc? All are using drupal. Search for "High Profile Drupal Sites"
I am sure they are many other options, just thought to comment on that.
| 6:14 pm on Jan 9, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Observer.com, TheOnion.com, TeamSugar.com... the list goes on
The first two are very high-volume sites but have mostly anonymous visitors - and Drupal does a great job of serving cached pages to anonymous visitors. The third is a community site so most users are logged-in, which is a more difficult problem, but they've also done a really good job optimizing for their large number of users.
Large volume sites can definitely be done on Drupal. Doesn't even really need a super-powerful server, it just likes dedicated hosting in order to be snappy. (My "sluggish" complaint was really just about shared servers. And it's definitely no worse than, say, MediaWiki ... but don't get me started on that bag of frowns!)
That said, something custom will obviously be more customizable for performance. But it'll cost you more time and money and thought to set up and maintain.
Best of luck to you!
| 5:06 pm on Jan 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
When in doubt, throw hardware at the problem. Powerful servers are cheaper these days, while most software hasn't become more sluggish than it already was. Naturally, optimizing the queries, script calls, etc. still makes a lot of sense, but for the cost of a two or three hours of programming you can pay a month's cost for a relatively fast server.
| 5:44 am on Jan 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"you mean like Mtv.com, New Yorker, Lifetime, Fox etc? All are using drupal. Search for "High Profile Drupal Sites"
That alone doesn't mean much. They could have a the database clustered and a server farm for the front end. Without knowing the architecture it doesn't say much about scalability or lack of scalability, just that some house hold names use the product.
As to the OP if you have that many articles and high traffic site, a cms that is capable of spitting out static files may help you. Now if each of those articles is heavily tailored to the user requesting them, then you are pretty much stuck puttting things together on the fly, but if it's not personalized content, it's hard to beat plain old static files for performance.
There is a site that compares CMS's side by side so you can see the features etc. I don't think I can post a link here though so PM me if you want or if it is ok to at least say what to search for I'll edit the post at a later time.
[edited by: CrustyAdmin at 5:47 am (utc) on Jan. 23, 2008]
| 6:38 pm on Jan 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I wish I was a paid spokesman for Drupal :)
I see your point that many servers might hide the inefficiency, but the seem to be so many coincidences.
Drupal also has cache (from 1 min to hours) that serve info in a flash. By trying several cms he loses nothing
| 5:55 pm on Jan 26, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone here have experience with SilverStripe? I'm curious to know how it compares to Drupal.