Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I'm thinking of going with a content management site like Mambo for my website. Why? because I like the ease of use concerning the number of people online, managing articles, people joining, and so on. To do this in HTMl would be a little bit beyond my scope.
My concern is, would I be better off just shooting for a straight HTML website instead, and try to weave in the extras later?
Obviously, my goal is to have a website that produces some revenue vis-a-vis AdSense.
The website concerns a new <widget> (that has been highly succesful) that looks like it will be also used in the near future for <widgetization>. If I'm positioned correctly when (or if) that comes to fruition, my website could be receiving a ton of hits.
Thoughts, concerns?
[edited by: martinibuster at 11:13 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] Business plans are less effective if you leak the specifics. ;) [/edit]
My only disapointment is that it's a bit slower than HTML when loading pages.
Even though it's a CMS, I still need to know some HTML for editing the pages.
I'm thinking of going with a content management site like Mambo for my website. Why? because I like the ease of use concerning the number of people online, managing articles, people joining, and so on. To do this in HTMl would be a little bit beyond my scope.
First, if you are going to use a CMS, I wouldn't use Mambo, use Joomla. All of the Mambo developers abandoned that project and now develop Joomla. As a Mambo user myself, I can testify that Joomla is much more stable and better supported.
There is nothing wrong with this CMS if you have some rudementary experience with PHP and know your webserver well. It can be very powerful and if you manage your sever right, it can also be very scalable.
There are many adsense related modules, mambots, and components already available for Joomla as most of these things developed for Mambo, work with Joomla (for now).
Good luck!
There are many adsense related modules, mambots, and components already available for Joomla as most of these things developed for Mambo, work with Joomla (for now).
Most of the third-party developers who created these components are now also working with Joomla! and most of the components are being tested to ensure they work with future releases.
First, if you are going to use a CMS, I wouldn't use Mambo, use Joomla. All of the Mambo developers abandoned that project and now develop Joomla. As a Mambo user myself, I can testify that Joomla is much more stable and better supported.
Thanks, I didn't know that about Mambo and Joomla - I thought they were essentially the same.
I'm still wondering though, which is superior - a CMS or an HTML based website in terms of getting the best AdSense earnings - content being equal.
I'm still wondering though, which is superior - a CMS or an HTML based website in terms of getting the best AdSense earnings - content being equal.
I doubt if there's any significant difference, and if there is, how would anyone be able to determine or prove it?
I'm still wondering though, which is superior - a CMS or an HTML based website in terms of getting the best AdSense earnings - content being equal.
CMS is server side technology - so if it's done perfectly, there should be no difference on client/Googlebot side. I create dedicated CMS systems which are optimized to comply with Google guidelines - no ids in query, only text URLs, and Perl Storable based cache which speeds up getting data from database. Works as fine as HTML site. But SEO-dumb CMS with too much args in query string and exact title and description tags will not rank well of course.
CMS is server side technology - so if it's done perfectly, there should be no difference on client/Googlebot side. I create dedicated CMS systems which are optimized to comply with Google guidelines - no ids in query, only text URLs, and Perl Storable based cache which speeds up getting data from database. Works as fine as HTML site. But SEO-dumb CMS with too much args in query string and exact title and description tags will not rank well of course.
I understand that you have to some type of mod on the CMS to get the URLs to be more SE friendly.
Do you have an opinion of Joomal over Mambo?
and joomla is just great.
Do you have an opinion of Joomla! over Mambo?
Joomla! has a dedicated team behind it, with a proven track record, as they were the same team who developed the original Mambo.
The current Mambo team is unproven, and there are rumours that Miro (the commercial company behind Mambo), which is currently restructuring, wants to distance itself from the Mambo project.
60,000,000 hits per month for Joomla! versus 3,000,000 for Mambo says something about the viability of the Joomla! community. Open source projects live or die by the help and support of the active members.
I am leaning towards going with a Joomla site then, unless someone else out there would like to share their concerns...I'm always willing to listen!
Otherwise, you could install a Joomla on your website like a million other webmasters and hope that you don't lose your MySQL data =)
Some issues with CMS sites are that, as far as Adsense is concerned, are that they a) include a lot of cruft that isnt necessary, "like how many vistors on site", etc., b) they (sometimes, still) can generate SE-unfriendy URLS, and c) they might make it harder for Adsense to serve relevant ads.
You could compromise with a roll-your-own system and make a html template, split it up and serve it with PHP includes files. That way the site navigation could be just one file to update when editing/adding links/content.
Otherwise, you could install a Joomla on your website like a million other webmasters and hope that you don't lose your MySQL data =)
Make sure you're with a premium host then, and this won't happen - they'll back up every day and will restore your database for you so all you may lose would be one day.
Of course if you've any sense, you always back up onto your own hard-drive anyway ...
I personally "hate" open-source software since I feel so powerless... (e.g., I don't know which file does what), hackers are frequently looking for outdated software, in short, you can't do what I like better about webpages which is to simply forget about them for a couple of months and return to see them flooded with traffic. Well, maybe you can, but you still have to check them from time to time - make updates - etc. Do you really need people commenting on your articles? I have found out that in most niches, 90% of the regular internet surfers often write illegible comments which - in my opinion - do not improve your overall website. Do you really want to moderate them and try to stop SPAM? Speaking of SPAM, CMS have REAL SPAM problems... harvests, referral SPAM, comment SPAM... in short, unbearable.
If you have the time, as I mentioned before, build an unique website. However, I am sure many people will disagree with me, but as I am entitled with my opinion so is everyone else so I'd love to hear what everyone else has to say. Maybe I have missed in using OS CMS - though I doubt it.
Just to conclude, I want to mention the fact that OS CMS are generally very slow - not to mention the admin pannel. If you EVER want to change hosts, it will take you a while to download/upload everyhing (graphics, etc.) also you need to keep the original CMS link at the bottom which, in my opinion, is not too good SEO-wise - not to mention what other people have already said which is that CMS are in general not to good with the Search Engines. Of course, they will become more sophisticated as time passes so the decision is up to you - I hope my post helped to help you see the actual PROS of building an old-school website...
J
It is good that you pointed out that I'd have possesion of the HTML, and not have to worry about some MySQL database getting all messed up. Surely, HTML would load quicker and be more SE friendly than dynamic URL and PHP scripts.
If you choose to use a CMS, I do strongly recommend Joomla. Much of the things that some folks here don't like about a CMS can be easily turned off with a click. For instance, Joaquin mentions keeping the original CMS link -- the only link I have to Joomla is inside my administration area which is never seen by the public or the search engines. I find it handy to check for newer versions or updates. You can choose to allow or disallow having members other than yourself. You can choose to allow comments or not. You can choose to display or to not display just about anything for that matter.
I recommend that you give any CMS that interests you a test drive as that's the best way to see for yourself what it can or cannot do and make a decision based on if it will do what you want or need it to do. I also recommend that you FTP the files to your site rather than ever using something like Fantastico so that you are assured that you have the most recent versions.
I did that with several CMS packages until I found that Mambo, and later Joomla, could do what I needed. In one year my site that will continue to use Joomla has grown from roughly 400 pages to well over 800 pages (and is still growing). The first 400 pages took over 4 years to create using just HTML, but I'm the first to admit that I don't work daily on my sites. I don't have the time with a regular job and all.
[edited by: martinibuster at 11:21 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] Removed specifics. [/edit]
[edited by: martinibuster at 11:22 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] TOS #19 [/edit]
Thoughts, concerns?
Yes, but on your overall strategy, not choice of CMS :-).
Here's how the bet-on-the-future strategy has worked out for me. Because the keyword(s) are not yet real popular, I can get to the top of the SERPs with relatively modest effort.
But when the keyword "hits" and is suddenly big news, then my rankings take a hit, most likely because some much-higher PR sites cover the keyword. I'm pushed off of page 1 and, of course, traffic and revenue drop significantly off their peak.
But, all is not lost, and I see this slow kind of decay factor where Google says "yeah, famoussite.com has pages about keyword X, but people seem to actually be more likely to click on the link to your pages about keyword X".
So, despite the fact that this a kind of a "pop keyword" strategy, I find it works best if I'm in it for the long haul.
Tips:
a) Before the keyword "hits", don't rest on your laurels just because you're #1 in the Google SERPs. Keep building content/authority because of all the high-PR competition that's going to sprout up later.
b) If you know you're going to have big, established, Google-loved sites among your competition when this keyword "hits", then focus on winning the "but more people click on me" game. You will get Google love if Google notices that a lot of people are going down 3 pages in the SERPs to find you. Try to find some secondary focuses that real people will be interested in, but your main competition won't be covering. Example: you have advance information that GM is coming out with a new car called the Goober. You sure ain't gonna be #1 for "Goober" when it hits. But, you might have a shot at being #1 for "Goober problems" or "Goober colors" or "Goober lease". Cluster content around secondary targets like that, and pyramid them back to the main keyword of "Goober". Getting those clicks on the secondary keyword will help your primary ranking in the long run, IME.
c) Have something else to work on when the keyword "hits". Because a week or so later, you're going to get tanked in the rankings by the big boys. I suspect it's not worthwhile at that point to work real hard adding new content. Let them have their day. Give it a few weeks, then start doing modest additions. What's going to get you back on top is that, over time, the age of your page and the people skipping over the top listings to click on you are going to bring you back up towards the top. And, the big boys will soon have something new and more important than the Goober to write about. Eventually, Google will say "Hmm, this other website is really more devoted to the word Goober and, doggone, people like to click on it!"
All total opinion and totally unscientific hogwash, but that's how I view my experience with this strategy.
I'm still wondering though, which is superior - a CMS or an HTML based website in terms of getting the best AdSense earnings - content being equal.I doubt if there's any significant difference, and if there is, how would anyone be able to determine or prove it?
I've worked with html for about seven years and switched to Mambo (now I am running Joomla) a couple of years ago, and never looked back. Very easy to update and upkeep.
As an added bonus, I can change my adsense colors, layout, size, etc. across hundreds of pages in seconds using bots and modules. So I can experiment with what works and it doesn't, and I don't have to edit each page. Couple of minutes of easy changes, and your ads look differently accross your whole site, even if you got thousand of pages of content. That's one of the main advantages of CMS vs. static html.
If you can keep your website going without CMS then dont switch to any CMS,its always a good idea to not use them if possible
I don't use a CMS, but I don't agree with that statement, either. A CMS can be very useful if:
- You have a great deal of "content churn" (e.g., a news site with new articles every day).
- Most of your users enter your site through the home page, and you want them to see the latest articles.
- Your site has a lot of contributors.
- You prefer filling in forms to editing pages, or the people who contribute to your site don't know how to edit pages.
- You often work remotely, using computers that aren't your own.
- You have (or someone on your staff has) the technical knowledge to set up the CMS, make sure that the pages it creates are crawler-friendly, and deal with glitches, crashes, and software updates.
On the other hand, static pages may be preferable if:
- Most of your content is "evergreen."
- You work mostly on your own.
- You'd rather edit pages than fill in forms.
- You're more interested in content than in content-management systems.
- You've already had success with the "flat file" approach and don't want to risk messing up a good thing.
To each his own. However, I do think that anyone considering a CMS should be technically adept and should know how to ensure that the pages created with the CMS will provide easily digestible "spider food" for search engines.
I do think that anyone considering a CMS should be technically adept.
Once that is done, it's just point, type, and click (as you get into it, you'll start doing more). After all, PHP initially stood for "Personal Home Page" -- designed for people who can't write HTML code or not comfortable with ftp, as it really requires very little knowledge of both.
