Should I go with manual website or CMS website

by 20 replies
23
Hello everyone, I want to create a new website but need some suggestion regarding the development of website. I have never used cms but have seen wordpress websites which looks good. Also heard that CMS websites when grows overload server. On the other hand I also like manually build websites which allows anything to be edited and uses less resources. Although I like manual website still looking for your suggestions and experince.

Thanks
#website design #cms #manual #website
  • CMS everytime
  • CMS websites are good

    You can make changes anytime in CMS websites. they have lot more features than normal websites.

    You can use custom design and integrate it with CMS
  • are you being sarcastic?

    In my opinion you should rarely use CMS websites. Most businesses don't need to update their websites and will do fine with a static html website. No need to worry about hacking, security updates, server load, etc.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • You may not agree that CMS websites should be used, but there is no reason to think that the use of a CMS is unreasonable.

      A CMS has benefits. They include:

      * separation of content & design (This brings numerous benefits)
      * administration interface
      * easy to template
      * Better site search

      You may not like or understand content management systems, but that's no reason to believe people are being sarcastic when they recommend using a CMS.

      Plenty of CMS sites out there are run without such worries. It's just not very difficult to keep a CMS site online, updated, and secured. If a person can't do these things, or if it causes a significant amount of worry, then I agree, they shouldn't use a CMS.
      • [1] reply
  • Really? If you have no intentions of updating your website frequently how can you ever suggest that a CMS be used? It causes so much headache for no reason (issues with PHP upgrades, transfer of server problems, the list goes on). If you can get by with a static html website then you should NEVER (EVER) use a cms in such a situation. It is beyond idiotic. (one caveat -> unless the client requests it)

    If you do not have the (extremely basic) skills required to create a html website from scratch - then sure use wordpress and some templates. However, it should be noted that html templates exist as well... and they are much more abundant.

    The reality is any good developer will know when to use a CMS, and when not to, based on the clients requirements.

    Plenty of CMS sites out there run with a lot of worries, and get hacked frequently. Risk avoidance is the name of the game.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • I was not aware that OP was planning a web site that would be seldom updated.

      Anyway, a CMS has the benefit of ease of use regardless of update frequency.

      It seems you've had some difficulty in using content management systems. For you, I think it makes sense to not use one.

      In the case of PHP upgrades, take for instance Wordpress. Most popular shared hosting providers are going to maintain good quality with Wordpress if they know what's best for them.

      Also, most CMSs that I've used don't release versions based on bleeding edge PHP releases. The releases of content management systems do a good job of being compatible with common PHP versions.

      You seem a bit dogmatic in your stance regarding CMS.

      I require more than what I can get by with. I'm sure I could do everything with vi or notepad and store all of my files in a directory structure like I would have 20 years ago, but I'd rather have all of the benefits that a CMS provides. I use many features of content management systems.


      I have excellent HTML skils and a CMS adds to what I can do with my skills. But you mentioned a good reason for novices to use a CMS - the abundance of readily to go templates. Same goes for plugins; novices can easily achieve the functionality that they want with the many plugins available.

      Naturally, they would be more abundant. And with most CMS systems, they can be integrated into a compatible theme/template.

      Also, a good developer is flexible, and not dogmatic, in his attitude toward available technologies.


      Sure, and cars break down - some even catch on fire and explode. Some get broken into.

      So ride a bike.
    • Never ever say never ever.
  • Exactly. If the location I need to get to is only 5 steps away, there is no need to get into a car to get their
    • [1] reply
    • If that's an analogy which applies to the extent of your web development demands, then I think you could easily get by with publishing plain text files instead of HTML.

      And maybe you should just publish those text files to a GOPHER or an FTP site because you could easily get by without HTTP and that newfangled HTML.
  • HTTP is over rated. FTP is where it's at. If people want to view anything they can download the .txt file. Just make sure they are named appropriately.

    ie: 'contact_us.txt' can have your contact info (telegraph number, etc). Also, be sure to include an 'about_us.txt' so they know what your company does (supplier of bell bottom jeans, etc). I recommend hosting on at least a 56kb upload speed for the best reliability. Your computer from home should do fine as long as your running Windows 95 or greater.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply

    • I don't have a home computer or a 56bk and I don't understand any of what you just said about STDs and 95s. I would just like to be able to send you a SASE and then you send me a brochure. A fax # would be useful.
  • There are some passionate opinions on this topic. Unfortunately the original question didn't give much information to go on other than:

    There have been some good points made and I wont rehash them. The goal of any project should be to find the simplest yet most effective solution.

    We have to know what skillset and/or resources "apnavarun" has at their disposal to make this website happen. If they have basic html/css editing skills and don't plan to blog then perhaps a static site is in order. You can get a nice looking template for $10-15 and edit it on your own if you have the skill.

    On the other hand if apnavarun is at least familiar with the wordpress dashboard (or other CMS, but we'll use WP as the example), then they should be able to set up and manage a decent looking website with out much effort. However using a CMS can become unwieldy when you are trying to customize pages with varying layouts or content.

    The benefits of using a wordpress setup is that you'll have access to a vast amount of useful plugins. But if you don't require all of that for your site, then going through the process of setting up wordpress and managing updates becomes unnecessary.

    You shouldn't ALWAYS go the CMS route if it's not required for your project. Because it does take additional time to set up and manage. However if you are willing to manage the CMS, can deal with PHP for customization, and need content management for a site with constant updates, then perhaps the a CMS is the way to go. But please don't do it just because you've "seen some nice looking wordpress sites."
  • Go with manual if its a one time update website, which doesn't require updates and if it's a regular update website then go for cms.
    In my opinion though wordpress is not a cms : it has a wide collection of plugins.
    Its the best.
  • these days google seem to love manual html websites for ranking but some other cms not wordpress might also work
  • I think you should go with the manual creation of the website. Although it is not that easy, it's fun. And you can practice and practice your skills in it through time.
  • [DELETED]
    • [1] reply
    • Where do you think CMS themes come from? They come from plain HTML.

      Also, I think the many people who list "many themes available" as their #1 or #2 reason for using a CMS are not the types of people who have the HTML skills needed to run a non-CMS based web site.
      • [1] reply
  • CMS every time, if you go with a manual HTML site then you will have to edit tons of code to make simple edits to your webpages..
  • To be able to advise you better it would be great to get an idea of the outcome of your website.

    If anywhere in your planing stage you state the requirement to update content yourself then a cms would be advisable, I only build Wordpress website but started with static HTML and then php so I understand the benefits of both.

    Wordpress will pose both security and performance issues as will a static site if built incorrectly. However with a good developer you should be able to utilise many of the less frameworks available to create a very secure and responsive websitr
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 23

    Should I go with manual website or CMS website

    Hello everyone, I want to create a new website but need some suggestion regarding the development of website. I have never used cms but have seen wordpress websites which looks good. Also heard that CMS websites when grows overload server. On the other hand I also like manually build websites which allows anything to be edited and uses less resources. Although I like manual website still looking for your suggestions and experince. Thanks