homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.21.57
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Content Management
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: ergophobe

Content Management Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
CMS and SEO - an unhappy relation.
..... or a real possibillity?
rencke

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 3:33 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have just over 5.000 pages online in 21 different languages and spread over 33 domains. Our translators are pestering me about a CMS, in order to make their work easier. But I am really concerned that a CMS would destroy our excellent organic rankings and pass us into oblivion as far as the search engines go. The reason is that I have been examining a major CMS based system with content adjacent to ours.

While their 5000+ page site has 1600 inbound links and enjoys a #5 ranking in Google for *the* most important high volume keyword, it is impossible to lift any of their pages up into the top 100 even using full page titles, headlines or unique expressions from the text. Consequently, they get all their traffic from inbound links and the one single top keyword and none from hits on their rich editorial content - created and maintained by more than a dozen employees in 10 or so different countries.

Looking at their pages, it is clear that the CMS has bloated them beyond all reason. A small page that might need 3kb of code at the very most, actually uses 10 times that amount. All styles are on the page itself, so that one simple link requires 170 bytes instead of around 65. And not only that, high up on each page is a massive 20 Kb script, that fills some function that no one understands, pushing real content way down on the page.

To further aggravate the situation, the CMS assigns a new name to a page every time it is changed and links it into the site, without leaving a re-direct at the old place. So bookmarks become obsolete pretty quickly.

Is this the way CMS:s usually work? Or is there any system anywhere that writes clean compact code with styles left to external style sheets and no funny scripting? I have been looking around, but found none.

 

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 3:40 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is this the way CMS:s usually work?

Many of the packages I've seen do. It's unfortunate too because I think they are really missing the boat on this one.

Or is there any system anywhere that writes clean compact code with styles left to external style sheets and no funny scripting? I have been looking around, but found none.

Oh, there are a few available out there but I think most of the really good ones (based on your requirements) are of the "Roll Your Own" variety. In most instances, rolling your own might be the best option. I've not looked at any feature rich CMS systems lately but what I've seen in the past hasn't been real impressive. But, that is just me. I look for 100% validation and that narrows my choices to less than a handful. ;)

P.S. I use FrontPage as a full featured CMS. Performs without fail for my demanding requirements. ;)

joaquin112

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:12 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I noticed exactly the same thing. What did I do? I created my own CMS. I cannot post my URL here per the TOS, but alas; I tell you that every single one of my pages rank in the top 10 at Google. Coincidence? Not a chance! By creating my unique CMS from a design I hired someone to do, I removed every single useless feature such as the "number of current users", polls, fancy yet useless graphics, RSS feed link, Joomla (or other) link at the footer, and the list goes on.

My pages are as small as if created individually, have a .html extension which I KNOW benefits rankings, and give users an overall better feeling as if it were just another wordpress blog with that custom blue template.

So I made my own CMS. It took me a few days to make it the exact way I wanted, but within two months it paid off, and now it is paying itself over every month with no sign of slowing down. In my honest opinion, Joomla and those other CMS are terrible. They drain a ton of server resources, are very heavy and they don't add anything to an user's experience. I am not saying that a site cannot be successful with such software, but it is realistically nowhere near as if it were a custom-created CMS.

Just my 2C.

TinkyWinky

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:13 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I looked at a few CMS software packages - nothing comes close to having your own built.

However, to build your own requires money and also the time to get it wrong... you cannot get everything 100% at the first time of asking (I am on to my 4th re-incarnation) - there will always be things to change, add, tweak, relate to other areas etc etc

Building your own also means you can manage css etc easily and keep page sizes to a real minimum...

Also if you use the same developers, then when you move on to the second or third re-incarnation, they can import the data into the new system much more easily (provided they are good at building it correctly in the first place that is :¦)

lobo235

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:19 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have created my own CMS system because I wanted to organize my content and make it easier to change pages and create new ones. I wanted full control over what ended up on each page so I was pretty much left with creating my own CMS as the only option. I now use this custom CMS on 3 of my sites and it has been working well for me. I would highly recommend writing your own or having someone do it for you.

mister charlie

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:34 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

most of the php based CMS available are pretty easy to modify. spending the time and effort to build to your own specificaitons is well worth the undertaking.

Metaphorically

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:36 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's important not to just assume that the CMS will do everything. Just as if you'd written the page yourself, you have to look at some source for the output. Consider all the usual SEO factors: what's the CMS putting in Hx tags? What's the CMS using for the title of the page? And so on.

The problem is that when you want to adjust these factors, you can't just change your document. You have to get in to the CMS code. You might be able to adjust many through changes to the theme and others with a custom module. There could be factors, though, that you can't change unless you actually get in and modify the source. That's going to make other maintenance difficult (upgrades and patches), but it can be the only choice.

I've been looking at this for myself lately and I can see a lot more now why some people still choose to roll their own.

jamie

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:40 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

i agree with everything which is said above.

making your own is the way to go - although i can imagine it would be difficult if you have to outsource completely.

using mod_rewrite with a custom built cms means you can maintain all your exact page names. there is no need whatsoever for SE's to realise the site is dynamic.

anyone proficient in php/mysql should be able to knock together a decent cms - maybe you should look for someone to join the company?

ebound

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:50 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I also agree. I've written my entire CMS from scratch. Mine is ASP based using includes and text files to produce the appearance of non-dynamic pages. It works out great.

Jafo

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:11 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Perhaps a poorly managed Joomla CMS may look like this, but I run a couple Joomla sites that have none of what the thread starter posted. Out of the box, perhaps it would, but good template design, mod_rewriting, and css avoids 99% of all of that.

If done correctly, a good CMS can save you many hours of work, and appear seamless to the user and indexing SE.

rohitj

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:29 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

what are you seeking to get out of a cms system? depending upon your answer--as others have said--making your own may be the best route.

is the system going to be used by html illiterate people? there's small scripts that create a wysiwyg backend while the front-end is virtually unaltered. Perhaps this might be what you're seeking?

rogerd

WebmasterWorld Administrator rogerd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:43 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

For years, most software developers were clueless about SEO. At best, they gave lip service to SEO but were a few years behind the curve. ("Yes! We now use the keywords META tag to improve your search engine rankings!"

More recently, we're seeing serious third-party SEO mods/plugins for software that can accommodate them, and even the original software developers making an effort to build in better SEO.

Having said that, most software developers remain almost completely focused on the visible page. Code bloat, weird URLs, etc. simply aren't on the radar screen.

arrowdevelopment

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:44 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have found Typo3 to be an excellent CMS to work with for SEO. Sure the learning curve is obnoxious and it takes a while to customize it to be "search engine friendly" but once you get it up and going; managing it and adding new content is a pleasant experience.

I personally don't have the programming chops to write my own custom cms though so that is definitely part of the reason for my open source cms advocacy.

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:55 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have found Typo3 to be an excellent CMS to work with for SEO. Sure the learning curve is obnoxious and it takes a while to customize it to be "search engine friendly" but once you get it up and going; managing it and adding new content is a pleasant experience.

I see this general sentiment quite a bit when reading CMS topics.

For most, rolling your own is going to be the best option. Each of us have different ways of doing things, laying out pages, etc.

The problem with using a "wholesale" type CMS is that you're limited to the default layouts if you are not code savvy and/or CMS savvy. This means thousands of websites out there generating the same footprints. What happens when users of that particular CMS start abusing it? Typically, the search quality engineers are going to start looking at footprints. If those footprints cross a certain threshold, into the depths you go.

I've been working with FrontPage for years and use it's built in facilities for managing content. I just recently started working with DWTs and have found that it's a great solution for creating a CMS that is a little more friendly for the type of sites I build. Also, I build the CMS components in while I'm building the site so it is totally customized to that particular website, I have no restrictions and only have to work with code that is relevant to what we're doing.

CMS may mean different things to different people. I have yet to see an all inclusive system that does everything one would need to do from a search engine marketing perspective.

There's a nifty little CMS for FrontPage called ContentSeed. I've not had the chance to build an entire site using it, but it is on my list of things to do. I like it alot and when I first did the demo, I was impressed and still am.

CainIV

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:59 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

We paid a programmer to create us a CMS system. You might consider doing the same.

The CMS uses only div/css, and places text high on the page for each page in the website. Uses proper keywpords in Title and H1 header. Also uses rss for each page.

I recommened either paying someone to create one, or look around at open source code you have permission to alter and use

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 6:03 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Or look around at open source code you have permission to alter and use.

This is where you have to be careful. Once a particular system becomes common, then the miscreants step in and start hacking. That is definitely not something I want to be faced with. I'd rather have to deal with the security issues myself and not rely on open source to do it for me. phpbb is just one example of what open source software can present (security issues) to those using it. You have to be very careful and maintain those systems or there could be trouble.

CainIV

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 6:07 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Then your best option is to take the hit cost wise and hire a good programmer

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 8 posted 6:42 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Then your best option is to take the hit cost wise and hire a good programmer

I think that's easier said than done. How do you identify a programmer who understands your needs and the needs of search engines, and who can be trusted to deliver a CMS that works for you?

bedlam

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 6:53 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Is this the way CMS:s usually work? Or is there any system anywhere that writes clean compact code with styles left to external style sheets and no funny scripting? I have been looking around, but found none.

Well, I'll forgo the specifics since Brett has asked that this forum not simply degenerate into the 'cms recommendation forum,' but I can think of two open source cms packages that can certainly do this and several more that I'm sure can do so, but where I don't have the specific experience to back that claim up.

In my opinion, this is the single most important quality of a cms; it must allow complete or near-complete control over outputted code. If it can't do that then without even considering SEO factors, it is likely to cause problems eventually. Add SEO to that equation and the problems become even worse...

On the other hand, I don't think that this:

In most instances, rolling your own might be the best option.

...can possibly be true 'in most instances.' To trot out a slightly tired old saying, do you tell people to build a clock when they ask you what time it is?

In fact, I think that most of the frequent 'roll your own' recommendations are the result of two or three main issues:

  1. The dubious belief that a site operator should be able to build the framework of his or her own site
  2. The usually awful job people do of evaluating available cms packages before using them
  3. The widespread reluctance/inability to pay for CMS implementations

The absurdidty of the first point is obvious; the vast majority of site operators are not even technically sophisticated enough to code validating web pages (in fact, as PageOneResults points out, even most CMS developers fall short of this lowly goal...) Given that a CMS should generate valid code and that it should be based on a reasonably secure and efficient code base, this option is ridiculous in the vast majority of cases.

An internet entrepreneur can, of course, pay a developer to custom-build a CMS, but I suggest that money spent for this purpose would be better spent by hiring a developer to implement and possibly customize an existing CMS.

This strategy allows you to start from a rather highly developed base rather than starting entirely from scratch and should--provided that the client and developer have done their evaluation homework--get you much closer to your goals on the first attempt than is likely with an entirely new software project.

But it's this homework--point 2--that dooms some CMS implementation projects before they're even begun and allows others to thrive. Obviously the diverse needs of members of a community like this preclude making any too-specific recommendations about what to look for in a CMS, but I would suggest it should be at least as involved a process as buying a digital camera, laptop, backup power supply or pda. You should also be prepared to admit that your needs would be better met by paying someone to build static pages for you or by learning to do it on your own--coding pages and css is a much more generally useful ability to have than being able to use any given CMS.

Point 3 is a problem as well; CMS implementations, like any website project, can be expensive in terms of cash outlay. But DIY CMS implementations are extremely expensive in terms of time (not to mention frustration...) If you intend to implement a CMS on your own, be sure that your planning involves sufficient time for the following steps in the process prior to your launch date:

  • An exhaustive determination of the features you require from a cms,
  • A lengthy process of shortlisting several possible packages for further evaluation,
  • A short period of testing each of the shortlisted products,
  • A longer and more intensive period of testing and learning the final two or three candidates
  • The site-building period,
  • A training period for other contributors,
  • A pre-launch or beta period for testing, tweaking and bugfixing the site.

It should also be obvious that building a CMS from scratch still requires most of the same steps and, as I mentioned, a brand new software package is likely to be deficient compared to the more sophisticated open source products already available...

Notice too, that I haven't even mentioned CMS template design (which is a slightly specialized area, it being a little trickier to design page and content markup for general use than it is to custom build individual pages) or anything to do specifically with CMS-ecommerce integration. If you don't know about these areas and can't afford to pay someone to help you out, you will have to budget time for these items as well.

Hopefully this doesn't take the thread too off-topic, but for every WebmasterWorld member who can realistically entertain the idea of building a CMS from scratch or setting up their own CMS properly, there are a hundred who can't or don't want to and who probably don't need to in the first place...

-b

bedlam

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 7:05 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have found Typo3 to be an excellent CMS to work with for SEO. Sure the learning curve is obnoxious and it takes a while to customize it to be "search engine friendly" but once you get it up and going; managing it and adding new content is a pleasant experience.

I see this general sentiment quite a bit when reading CMS topics.

For most, rolling your own is going to be the best option. Each of us have different ways of doing things, laying out pages, etc.

Something I always try to insist on in CMS projects, all other things being equal, is that a CMS have no opinions about layout or code generation. TYPO3 is generally very good about this. There is a default rendering scheme--a 'footprint' if you like, but it's probably less than two hours work for a competent developer to completely change the html output of the system to plain, simple, uncomplicated markup.

Out of the box the basic html markup it uses is xhtml compliant, but kind of clueless--classes on p tags by default, divs wrapped around hx elements and so on--but it is very simple and very quick to change from the default markup to standard p, hx etc.

-b

sherwoodseo

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 8:29 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

We saw enough grief from SEO clients with CMS problems that we decided to roll our own. Starting with open source components, we tested it on a few inhouse projects and then started offering it to clients.

We're happy we did it, but it cost hundreds of hours to develop.

And I second bedlam's opinion: CMS template coding pushes up the hours required for every design project. In fact, this prevents us from offering the CMS to low-end clients. It's not as simple as making another "free" copy of the system.

[edited by: sherwoodseo at 8:32 pm (utc) on May 5, 2006]

TheWhippinpost

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 8:31 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Have a look at Civicspace, built a-top, but not a fork of, Drupal.

It has an additional (optional) module called (IIRC) CivicCRM.

It (Civicspace) started off as a project to help activists in the last presidential race stay organised but has now gone beyond that.

CivicCRM however, is a recent addition which I haven't played with it so can't/won't vouch for it, though it has existed for some time apparently.

As far as the SEO aspects of CS are concerned: No complaints. In fact, once you get your head around taxonomy theory, it's probably the strongest and most flexible API (included) around.

But of course, they all come with the caveat of whether it will serve your specifics. Also, with flexibility, comes a learning curve... in the case of CS/Drupal, it's the concept of taxonomy. Once the penny drops however...!

herlaar2303

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 10:41 pm on May 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

We use TYPO3 extensively for SEO and development projects. It takes a lot of time and effort to know your way around in the system, and you also need some technical staff. We have noticed that when you use:

- a good XHTML compliant template
- the right extensions (or plugins)
- the correct configuration

Everything is possible. We even use dynamically created GIF's for headlines in the right fonttype in a way that it is still search engine friendly.

We didn't recode the CMS or wrote our own, but learned to use a standard CMS the right (SEO) way.

Ric

edaindia

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 8:23 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am not sure if what I have rolled out counts as a cms system, but here goes.

1. Put the content for each page in a seperate file
2.Have a spreadsheet with each column indicating one of the required parameters. eg. name of content file,keywords,description, title etc.

use perl or any other scripting language to generate the Proper html files (you may use ssi to include the content and other matter or have the content directly in the file.)

upload the generated files/directory structure on your webserver.
HTH

mcskoufis

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 11:58 am on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Personally I have found that the Drupal.org project is very search engine friendly. With over 55,000 websites using it, including some NASA websites and even Tim Berners Lee's blog.

Even if you don't use mod-rewrite to rewrite the node/123 urla which are available by default, it still does a good job.

I remember about a year ago, the nightmares with the then Mambo CMS. Not to mention the recently released Drupal 4.7 which brings in many of those features users without many technical abilities expect to see, making it really user-friendly.

rencke

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 2:33 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

WOW! This is WebmasterWorld at its very best. I create a new topic late Friday pm (my time), leave the office and return 24 hours later to find a ton of invaluable advise from a bevvy of the savvy.

On the topic:

Although there are several recommendations for CMS systems that I have never heard of before, the overwhelming majority seems to be for the creation of a custom made CMS from scratch. I guess this means:

a) my writing a very detailed specification. I know can do that.
b) finding a developer somewhere. But how and where? Feel free to sticky me.
c) Pay. We are not paupers, so we can do that. But what are we talking about?
It took me a few days to make... (joaquin112)

... but it cost hundreds of hours to develop (sherwoodseo)

Hmmm... How many hundreds of hours?

Also:

This interesting comment from joaquin112:
...have a .html extension which I KNOW benefits rankings...

Didn't know that. Does any one else want to put their 2 cents in here?

And this from jamie:
using mod_rewrite with a custom built cms means that you can maintain all your exact page names

and presumably library structure too. Bearing Brett's advise about Google and directory names in mind, this would be extremely important, right?

Is the system going to be used by html illiterate people?

You bet. And in numerous countries around the world. So I guess a wisiwyg back-end is an absolute must. Thanks for pointing that out.

bedlam

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 3:15 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Although there are several recommendations for CMS systems that I have never heard of before, the overwhelming majority seems to be for the creation of a custom made CMS from scratch. I guess this means:

a) my writing a very detailed specification. I know can do that.
b) finding a developer somewhere. But how and where? Feel free to sticky me.
c) Pay.

The process sounds reasonable to me, but I'd say you're already headed in the direction of exactly the kind of shoddy evaluation process I alluded to in an earlier post. You are not seriously proposing to base a major business / technology / development decision on a collection of forum posts are you?

One way or another, it sounds like you're going to need to build expertise in a certain product within your organization and that you're going to need outside help to do it. It also sounds like you're at the very beginning of the process.

Given that you're going to need to hire consultants in any case, do not take existing products off the table. It is very likely that your needs are not so unique as to warrant the very creation of an entirely new system. Again, there are many mature and stable products already available whose sophistication a new system simply will not equal for many versions.

Draw up your specs, and send out your RFPs, but don't rule out existing systems unless you have extremely strong, specific reasons. There is nothing at all that you mention in the initial post in the thread or in your follow-up post above that can't be easily achieved with any of several mature products.

It's quite possible that at the end of a thorough evaluation process, you will decide to 'roll your own', but given what's already out there, it's awfully short-sighted to decide to do so at the outset.

-b

rencke

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 3:46 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

You are not seriously proposing to base a major business / technology / development decision on a collection of forum posts are you?
You bet! This is WebmasterWorld, remember! :)

don't rule out existing systems unless you have extremely strong, specific reasons
Hmmm... Would these qualify as strong and specific?

1. Need to import existing 5000 static pages automatically or at least semi-automatically into CMS database.
2. Support for non Latin character sets including Russian, Japanese and Chinese.
3. Full control over directory and file names.
4. Online wysiwyg interface with top notch security for html illiterate translators and other content creators.
5. Clean compact code that validates.
6. CSS off page.

If there are existing systems that can handle this, then I guess that might be something to look into.

bedlam

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 4:48 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

You are not seriously proposing to base a major business / technology / development decision on a collection of forum posts are you?

You bet! This is WebmasterWorld, remember! :)

There is an enormous amount of good and bad advice on the boards here. Exercise caution.

Hmmm... Would these qualify as strong and specific?

Yes, if they were difficult to achieve--

1. Need to import existing 5000 static pages automatically or at least semi-automatically into CMS database.

This, IMO, is no function of a CMS--it gets used once and is probably close to impossible to write in a sufficiently general way to be widely useful. This part I think you will have to have custom built whether you use an existing product or not.

It's also worth considering that a) if the CMS you wind up using can exactly mirror your directory and file naming conventions, you don't necessarily need to import any page until it needs changing (unless you're proposing a design change at the same time as the implementation) and b) that it's quite possible it will be cheaper to migrate content by hand than it is to write a new tool to do it quickly--5000 pages may or may not be a large number, depending on what they're like.

2. Support for non Latin character sets including Russian, Japanese and Chinese.

This feature is available and quite mature (i.e. has been in production use for three or four years already) in at least one CMS I know well. A quick look on one of the various CMS comparison sites shows that many products claim multi-language capabilities...

3. Full control over directory and file names.
4. Online wysiwyg interface with top notch security for html illiterate translators and other content creators.
5. Clean compact code that validates.
6. CSS off page.

These are plain, bog standard, common features in the better products out there.

This is what worries me about people getting into major CMS projects without doing their research--all of the features that you have named (at least those that you could reasonably expect to be generically useful) are widely available, but you're preparing to start from scratch.

Build from the ground up if you need to, but make sure that you need to before you start.

-b

TheWhippinpost

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8 posted 5:49 pm on May 6, 2006 (gmt 0)

Bedlam is right - At the very least, play with a few that are out there, get a feel for them... you'll most likely see features you haven't even yet thought about if nothing else.

It'll be easier and safer if you can find a core you can build-out from as some of these systems have had a few years out in the wild now, therefore overcoming some of the likely problems you'll be constantly be going back to tweak.

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Content Management
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved