Planning a Large Informational site

Static vs. Dynamic?

[KevinC]

Just wanted to get some input from others who have developed mid-large sized informational site(100-200 pages).

I have hired a copywriter to begin developing content and within about a month I should have anywhere from 100-200 pages of unique content. I will have to insert each page into a template myself as well as optimize each page.

I am thinking of making everything static - but I am I going to run into problems as the site grows and I add more content?

I am also somewhat stuck with developing a good navigation system - obviously I cannot link to every page from the homepage, but whats a good solution?

Any advice from members that have worked on this sort of project?

Thanks in advance!

[txbakers]

but I am I going to run into problems as the site grows and I add more content?

Yes. Do you really want to make updates to 200+ pages manually? Go dynamic, and you have one place to make changes. Use includes.

I am also somewhat stuck with developing a good navigation system - obviously I cannot link to every page from the homepage,

Think of a tree structure. This site for instance.

[WeirdoPL]

Just a statement:
As an average user I really prefer to use dynamic sites. The static ones seem to annoy me. Also: in't it much easier to manage a dynamic structure?

[Rumbas]

I would certainly go dynamic and I agree with txbakers that includes are vital too.

No doubt what so ever as to choose a database based solution. If you run it all through a few well structured templates and put your indivdual content in a db, you'll have a powerfull site. Easy to make site-wide edits that effect all of the the site's parameters.

Get the copywriters to write content. You control everything else trough the ability to alter and adjust the code with few templates.

Good strategy for international multi-language sites ;)

[figment88]

Static sites can also be template driven. There is an interesting discussion abut site mirroring using wget on another thread.

Dynamic site means that pages are generated as they are requested. There is no page.html. Completely dyamic sites are good when you have multiple people who can make changes and do so often. Forums are a good example.

If you just have lots of pages that do not change much and only have a few people who can make changes, then you want a template driven site. You can use something like wget or you can have a script that writes files. Either way you get a bunch of static pages that you make in a development area and then upload to production. The big advantage is you are not crunching the CPU like on a fully dynamic site.

Then there ar ehybrids where you have a mostly static site but it has dynamic feeds such using RSS, javascript includes, or an ad sever.

[wackybrit]

I would personally use a locked wiki. That way you get the benefits of good templating, easy to manage content, and even total idiots can edit pages. I have clients who are computer illiterate who can now play with the copy on their site (while the design remains locked down) if they so wish.

I think I should release my system (which is an adaption/customization of a very popular wiki system) open source actually, so everyone can have a go!

Of course, if you have the budget, and want to lock down permissions in obscure ways throughout the site (i.e. only Mr A can edit this page, and only Mr B can edit some other page) then a proper content system is the way to go.. don't scrimp in that case! (as you'll get what you pay for)

[andy_boyd]

I would go dynamic, updating a large static html site is fine for the first couple of times but after a while things start to get scrappy. 'Find and replace' just isn't up to the job.

[figment88]

All you people advocating a dynamic site:

Don't you care about how fast pages load?
Don't you care about getting more visitors on a single server?

The original poster was asking about a site that is only 100-200 pages and it sounds like most of them will never change.

IMHO, the clear solution is to make static pages from templates. That way you get optimal server performance and any time you want to change the template, you just need to regenerate the site.

[rcjordan]

Or, create pure static pages from templates using datafeeds (mine is server-side, so no ftp, but there are client-side scripts available).

[KevinC]

*

[edited by: KevinC at 1:06 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2004]

[KevinC]

hmm - the more I look around I think I will avoid going the route above - instead I'm looking a few PHP based CMS.