Back in the old days (2005) we used to call this Do the Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work.
Or another way of looking at it: "You Ain't Gonna Need It" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it)
CMS Trap
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: CMS Trap
#12[deleted]
Re: CMS Trap
#13I am SO sick of spending more time configuring the CMS than writing code.
Oftentimes, I could've built a product from scratch in the time it takes me to Google the undocumented quirks of some stupid YAML file.
Re: CMS Trap
#14Re: CMS Trap
#15Re: CMS Trap
#16Just because you use a CMS doesn't mean you have to use it for everything. If you're managing content (blog content?) use a CMS. If you're making PPC pages, host them statically somewhere. If you sell something, use ecommerce software for that part. The right tool for the right job.
If you're making PPC pages, host them statically somewhere. I'd counter recommend this. In my limited experience with it, dynamic PPC landing pages are so effective as to be almost cheating. BCC's AdWords campaigns are not doing well in 2013 for what I believe are unrelated (and mysterious) reasons, but the ~20 lines of Rails code which make URL #1 and URL #2 roughly the same today but will automatically switch URL #…
Perhaps it would make more sense to say "you don't have to use the same CMS for everything"
Re: CMS Trap
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jekyll is a CMS.
Jekyll is a static website generator. It doesn't let you edit and publish content from a central interface. It's not a CMS.
It depends on what your needs are. If you need a central web interface with multi-stage workflows, multiple authors, image management, future publication, etc, then Jekyll isn't a CMS. But Jekyll focuses on content, handles markdown, reads metadata, and uses templates. For some people, that might be plenty. A pretty web interface isn't a must-have requirement.
Re: CMS Trap
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jekyll is a static website generator. It doesn't let you edit and publish content from a central interface. It's not a CMS.
It depends on what your needs are. If you need a central web interface with multi-stage workflows, multiple authors, image management, future publication, etc, then Jekyll isn't a CMS. But Jekyll focuses on content, handles markdown, reads metadata, and uses templates. For some people, that might be plenty. A pretty web interface isn't a must-have requirement.
> A pretty web interface isn't a must-have requirement.
According to most definitions of "CMS", it is. With static website generators, editing, versioning, publishing, etc is done externally. They aren't systems which encompass all of this. They just punch some content into your templates and write the result to disk. That's all they do.
Re: CMS Trap
#19Just because you use a CMS doesn't mean you have to use it for everything. If you're managing content (blog content?) use a CMS. If you're making PPC pages, host them statically somewhere. If you sell something, use ecommerce software for that part. The right tool for the right job.
If you're making PPC pages, host them statically somewhere. I'd counter recommend this. In my limited experience with it, dynamic PPC landing pages are so effective as to be almost cheating. BCC's AdWords campaigns are not doing well in 2013 for what I believe are unrelated (and mysterious) reasons, but the ~20 lines of Rails code which make URL #1 and URL #2 roughly the same today but will automatically switch URL #…
I didn't read the OP as advocating 900 static HTML pages... just using static pages as a first strategy, until reality, not your conjecture, tells you what you need.
Re: CMS Trap
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on what your needs are. If you need a central web interface with multi-stage workflows, multiple authors, image management, future publication, etc, then Jekyll isn't a CMS. But Jekyll focuses on content, handles markdown, reads metadata, and uses templates. For some people, that might be plenty. A pretty web interface isn't a must-have requirement.
> A pretty web interface isn't a must-have requirement. According to most definitions of "CMS", it is. With static website generators, editing, versioning, publishing, etc is done externally. They aren't systems which encompass all of this. They just punch some content into your templates and write the result to disk. That's all they do.
Are there any CMS that have a "pretty web interface" ?
From what I've seen of Drupal, the interface exposed to content creators is awful. It works (mostly), but it ain't pretty.