Forum Moderators: phranque
I'm considering buying a CMS and paying to have it customized, but before I go down that path I'd like to know: Just how much better is a CMS than any other approach?
Here's a few of the +++ of a CMS, as I understand them:
1) With a CMS you can login from any PC to add or update content. With a W you have to have the W software loaded on any PC you wish to use. (Problem: Do I really want to login in to my website from any PC? I don't think so.)
2) With a CMS you can allow people to add content, that is, comment or take a team approach. (Okay, but if a team member is having a bad day I'd better have a back up copy - or are CMS available that offer limited access and rights to co-developers?)
3) A CMS automates certain processes - such as dynamically creating links to new material. What else is automated - effectively? (So what's the big deal with automatic linking? I use a W template, hit the 'save as' button, pick a nice spiderable file name and I'm done.)
4) A CMS may have an automatic archive system. So?
What is it that a CMS does that is superior to a W system?
What are the risks, if any, of a CMS? (I don't know that I've ever read any CMS 'horror stories', but has anyone ever heard any? Are there CMSs that are time bombs waiting to go off - hack-ready code waiting for a mass exploit? How do you know?)
What can a CMS do that a WYSISYG system can't? Just how much time and effort is saved using a CMS versus a W system? Where, exactly, is the saving?
If there are other threads that go into these issues in any detail (I looked briefly) please drop a link.
A CMS uses a template. A WYSIWYG system can use templates. A CMS is configurable. So what? You can do the same using CSS in any website. A CMS can allow multiple users to login in. A WYSIWYG system, for example MS FrontPage, can allow multiple users to login in with access limited to specific subwebs/sub directories. A CMS allows you to add content. Ditto a W. A CMS may automate the creation of links, but without practice you are likely to crap out as things grow. A W system forces you to think when you create a new page/file: What are you going to name it, it asks.
What am I missing? Is it just the login anywhere that's the big plus? Is it the automation of file name and link creating? But don't you have to tweak things to get that function to work, in other words, as you create any given page you still need to spend time to be certain that 'when you fill in the blanks' the system spits out nice file names and related links? So, how is that different than what gets done with a W system?
If you want clean content, neatly organized, with a good navigational structure why is one anymore desirable?
What are the extras to a CMS? (Beyond, perhaps letting 3d parties add content/writing that you might need to edit or delete?)
I just scanned MovableType and I'm beginning to think that the discussions about CMS is just so much ado about nothing, with the exception of leaving comments behind, which can be handled by a simple CGI script.
I am not a convert. Anyone care to dip me into the holy waters of CMS?
One big advantage of a CMS is that non-technical people can easily add content to a site. To add a new page using FrontPage, Dreamweaver, etc., would require not only creating the page content but also naming the page, integrating the page into the rest of the site by creating new links on one or more pages, etc. They might also have to edit the meta tags, figure out how to add images or links, etc. In short, they would have to become somewhat proficient at using the software. They would also have to have a licensed copy of the software on their PC.
I've implemented simple CMS setups on sites that let completely non-technical users very easily add new pages. The pages come out right every time, they are properly linked up, and their SEO characteristics are what I expect.
Large sites can benefit from CMS for that reason, but several others, too. Normally, CMS software gives you a great deal of author control - what functions each individual can perform (create, edit, delete, upload images, etc.) and exactly where they can perform them. This is handy when you have multiple site contributors. You can usually add an approval step, too - one author creates the new page, but an editor must approve it before it is visible on the site.
Secondly, big-site CMS software often generates pages dynamically. This makes site-wide changes very easy. One template mod changes every page as soon as it is saved. Changing a template in DW, for example, first requires the change to be propagated to all the pages on your hard drive, and then those files must be uploaded to the server. No big deal for a few dozen pages, but a pain for a few thousand.
I wouldn't dismiss the thought of modifying the site from another PC as useless. I've occasionally gotten the panicked phone call about an egregious error that requires an immediate fix - that's easy if you can log into the site from any PC, e.g., a hotel business center, an Internet cafe, etc.
But let me add this: It's not so much a question of which approach is better. It's more a question of which approach better meets your particular needs. Some things you might consider in making your decision:
Are you already proficient in html and css and in using some particular WYSIWYG software, or would you have a steep learning curve to get up to speed enough to be able to use such an application? If you're already an expert in these things, a CMS may feel limiting to you. If you're a complete newbie, a CMS will allow you to start creating the content of your site without learning anything about authoring web pages.
Are you the only person who will be working on your site? If you're part of a team, how many people are on the team? Do the team members possess the requisite skills and knowledge to use standalone software, or would a CMS be better suited to the skillset of the team? What kind of process is in place for team coordination? What kind of editorial review is needed, and how will reviews and approvals be handled? There are many more questions along these lines.
If budget is a concern, keep in mind the per-user licensing costs for the software. A CMS costing $1500 may seem expensive, but if you would have to buy 20 copies of Dreamweaver at approx. $500 per, suddenly that CMS doesn't seem quite so expensive.
Both a WYSIWYG and a CMS can write clean, valid code or messy disorganized slop.
Both can save time, and both can waste time, just in different ways.
Both can be search-engine friendly, and both can be completely unspiderable.
I built a CMS for my brother-in-law to allow him to update his site himself, and it's great for him -- he's a luddite clueless newbie who thinks his computer has a poltergeist. Dreamweaver or any other WYSIWYG would simply not be an option for him. I, OTOH, would feel limited using that exact same CMS.
So you need to think about your site, and your needs, and figure out which approach will work better for you. Neither one is inherently better than the other.
The others have pretty much covered it, but I will add a few comments.
Most CMSs run on the server (some, like W, run on your PC). Your server must support the CMS. Most do, but some do not.
If your content must be dynamic, that is change without any effort on your part, a server based CMS is probably required. An example would be if an individual reader can have content displayed in a particular format, or if any visitor can enter data, such as comments or questions.
If all the content resides on your PC and the site is uploaded from your PC to the server, then W may be a good fit. Even if you have many writers submitting articles, if they all go through your PC, you can use W to create static pages to upload.
Another feature of using W is that you can proof the site on your PC (just load all the pages into a folder and open the front, or index, page and browse). While CMS packages are generally very good, I have seen errors pop up in quite a few professional, expensive, major news sites. It would be better to spot the errors before going live.
As sonjay said, it is a matter of which system meets your needs.
