Forum Moderators: open
I want to do SEO (only learn about web design on the side), but have a hard time getting started, because I procrastinated, etc. ;).
My first website will have max. 10 categories (top navigation) and 3 subcategories (only for some main categories). Thus the site will have 20-30 pages MAX. This might sound like "later you'll want to add more pages", but because of the nature of the site (very niche) it wouldn't make any sense to add additional pages (whereas I can tell it would make sense for other sites!). 20-30 is really the maximum.
Right now, I would be using 20 html pages (very little/no unnecessary code), 3 separate html-files (for navigation, etc.) and 1 CSS file. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible as you can see :-).
Just in case...if for some reason I want to use a CMS later on (maybe the site fails and I want to broaden the site's theme..then there'd be a need for more pages), Id like to ask these questions:
1. If I keep the site's structure as simple as I said above (20 html pages, 3 separate html-files for navigation/etc., 1 CSS file), would there be a lot of *additional* time involved in switching to a CMS (as in..more than a dozen hours or a few dozen hours)?
2. If I want to add RSS-feeds/social bookmarking later on...is that only possible with a CMS?
3. Is there a risk of losing backlinks, if one switches to a CMS? Maybe because the CMS will give the page files different names or something? or could this be prevented easily?
thanks!
2. You can add RSS-feeds/Social Bookmarking to your site now, it's just much harder to maintain without a CMS. Social Bookmarking actually might be adventagous for you now as you can include it as you create the pages, however if you already had 30 (or imagine when you get to 300) it is quite daunting to do it manually.
As for RSS, if you're only going to be sticking to the same number of pages and not updating your content then create an RSS page that contains all of your content and serve it up.... it can't hurt. As mentioned above though, it's going to be pretty repetitive to update the content on the page, or create new pages/content, then update the RSS feed to match.
3. If your URL's are going to change you're going to loose your back links. There are a few things you can do, do a search here on permanent redirects. Some CMS will allow for URL remaps as part of the asset options (got to love that)which makes this a breeze to handle.
Personally I think you should start of with a CMS. Just pick something light and easy to start with and you'll thank yourself for doing so a few months down the track. Do a search on open source CMS and find something you like.
Hope this helps.
1. If everything's on a template, it wouldn't take but a bit to manually copy and past everything into a CMS. If you have a lot more pages and you have a good uniform template (i.e. you can tell where the "content" part starts), a little regular expression magic could likely put everything into a format for inserting in a database. But, if you get beyond a handfull of pages, there's going to be a fair bit of manual work. I'd hate to have to enter 200 pages or something - but I suppose even that could be done in a couple good days of work with a fast connection.
2. RSS doesn't make any sense on a static site. What exactly would you be syndicating if you aren't regularly creating new pages? So You can worry about that later.
3. backlinks - with most CMS you can assign any URL you want to a page. I'm in the process of converting a static site to drupal for someone. You just make a page live in drupal and then delete the static page and it's changed over. No lost backlink.
Mostly it's just the hassle of #1 that you need to think about.
I guess, in that situation starting without a CMS, but switching to a CMS, if I realize I want to broaden the site, should be a good way to do it?
Im actually not using a template..I used a template but edited the code a ton (quite some time ago). However, what I did is I mostly simplified the code. The html-code is very simple - a lot more simple than the initial template (I like to keep things simple ;)). And there's really just one window/div container for the content. So I think 1. shouldnt be that much work (hopefully).
As for RSS not making sense on a static site. Actually, I do want to add content regularly. However, I'm pretty sure that I wont need a blog/CMS for it. I'll send you a quick link of a site that is doing basically what I want to do and doing just fine without a CMS/blog, but adding new content regularly (I hope thats ok, Im not allowed to post links here, right :)). Couldnt one use an RSS-feed for that? Or does it only work if you create new *pages* (but doesnt work if you dont create new pages, but add new content to existing ones)?
thanks!
This saves duplicating the content, and you can have the list either descending creation dates, or descending update dates (or any other way you want to organise your content).
That way as you update/create pages the RSS feed is updated and people can see your new content.
By maintaining a static site you would need to update the site, then update the rss feed you've created (static site = static rss feed).
Im actually not using a template..I used a template but edited the code a ton (quite some time ago)
When I say "template" I merely mean regular code that repeats for every page in such a way that you would be able to identify the page-specific sections. Generally speaking, most sites with a consistent look and feel are based on some sort of template.
As for RSS not making sense on a static site.
Sorry, my comment was poorly stated and that wasn't what I meant to say. Hasty reply as I was on my way out the door. You said that you would only build 20-30 pages and then just stop (or that's how I took your first post). I meant to say that if you aren't adding content, there's nothing to put into an RSS feed, and that's independent of whether you have static HTML pages or a CMS that generates them on the fly.
I'm just curious - I got into all of this internet stuff while doing some volunteer work for a non-profit who had a website all built in HTML. After a time, maintenance became such a nightmare, I learned PHP and started making some custom CMSs of poor to middling quality, b/c the ready-made CMSs that I found were just terrible IMO. Then, however, some of them got quite good and now I would say there are many that are quite good.
So for me, the evolution was like this
- I couldn't bear to maintain collections of static HTML pages, updating navigation on 30 pages if we wanted to add a new section.
- then I couldn't see spending the time coding my own CMS when I found some pretty good ones and realized that I was more interesting in writing than in coding, though I guess I still like both.
So all of that being a long-winded way of asking why bother with building a site with plain old text (HTML) files?
- performance - certainly requests to the filesystem will be super fast, but with filesystem or database caching of pages, many CMS will be awfully fast too.
- learning curve - if it works now, it works. That's a good reason.
- leaving well enough alone - ditto
So those are some reasons to stick with plain old static files. Do you have others? Just curious.
I didnt know the word template was used in that kind of way, too (English isn't my mother tongue).
I'm not sure if this was a misunderstanding: By "page" I meant to say one html-file, I guess. As in WebmasterWorld is a "website". And this page I'm on right now is a "webpage". I could add content to it (or well if I was in control of it ;)) every week and in thousand years it might be a really, really, really, really long and content-rich "(web)page"...but still a (web)page in my book (www WebmasterWorld com/../3764418.htm.
Thats how I thought of it (sorry if I got the definitions a bit wrong)..I mean..can you not have a one-page-website (which is static html) and add content to it for years (technically)? Couldnt you put that into an RSS-feed? Would it be considered one page (with a lot of content) or multiple pages? I guess I'm kind of confused, now!;)...but I guess if you have a website which consists of nothing but a static html-homepage, you could add content like crazy and create an RSS-feed for it, right?
I would definitely not want to have to edit the navigation for all of those 20-30 pages every time I make a quick change to it..that's why Im using SSI for the header, top navigation, side navigation (only on a few pages) and the footer. But I think that should do for now (could be wrong, though, but I hope not :))
To be honest, I did not understand the 3 reasons you gave for using static files? I mean, I dont understand them, at all - maybe has to do with my lack of understanding of this topic! Is a site which consist mostly of html-files faster than one that uses a CMS, because CMS = dynamic code (php)...?
Actually, I believe Ill end up using a CMS eventually, but for now (the next 3-4 months..the semester),Id prefer to finally get started and have some fun with my site (its taken me forever!), thus Id prefer to do it without a CMS, now and then after this semester make the decision whether I want to migrate to a CMS or not (at the beginning of semester break spending a couple days to learn about CMS's and do this wouldnt be a big problem...but now I have virtually no time and would prefer to "have some fun with it" ;), though of course I do not want to make any mistakes that I could really regret in 3-4 months from now (like losing all the links I'll hopefully have build till then ;))
Typically, RSS feeds only update when you have a new *page* not when you change/add content to an old page. I guess it could be done, but I've never seen it done that way. People who add you to their RSS feed will be expecting new "articles" on some regular basis. Typically each article is its own page.
RSS is a form of syndication (Really Simple Syndication) for content, so think of a columnist who writes an article weekly for a newspaper. If some article is really good and he goes back and rewrites it for, say, a book, he doesn't typically resyndicate it.
I'm not saying you can't, of course, but it just seems odd to me and I would probably not subscribe to such a feed. In your case, I might consider asking people to sign up for a newsletter. The newsletter would have summaries of what content has been added to existing pages, other finds around the web that are not on your site, news that might appeal to your audience, etc. Then you could also syndicate your newsletter in an RSS feed (so visitors would have the choice of delivery method). That would make more sense to me, but that's just my opinion based on feeds I sign up for.
>>I did not understand the 3 reasons you gave for using static files
In a bit more detail then...
*Performance. A CMS will have a fair bit of overhead with database requests and generating pages on the fly. So a given server can serve up a lot more static pages than it can dynamic pages.
*Learning curve. You can fire up Dreamweaver or what have you and start churning out HTML pages almost immediately and HTML is HTML no matter what editor you use. Every CMS has its own interface and so it can take a while to get comfortable with its capabilities and become efficient. I hope to become efficient with Drupal someday!
*Leaving well enough alone. I just mean that you have something that works for you now, and there's a lot in favor with sticking with what's working. If it works for you, great. You can focus on developing content instead of wrestling with a new system.
And one last thing - getting something on your domain is better than having nothing there. If static files do it for you, use that and get SOMETHING up RIGHT NOW. Before you reply here! I can wait, but Google is looking for you today ;-)
And have fun!
I started a site earlier this year, very similar. It only has about 15 - 20 pages on it and it updates every week or so. I just edit the page and upload it. No sense in putting in a complex system for such a small site.
But by now quite a few people have told me a CMS would be overkill for this site, so Ill go without one, knowing I can still change it, if I ever need to (I think thats the most important part of it).
