30 replies to this topic

[search_guru]

Hello,
I am doing research on SEO friendly CMS/portals. Some of the high level features that I listed are
1. Interface to change Title Tag
2. No parameters in URL path. Preferably verbose Url.
3. Interface to change ALT attributes for image tags
4. HTML content that works with variety of browsers.
5. Segregating CSS and Java Script code
6. Easy to navigate Site map
7. Built in Analytics with clickstream analysis
suggest your thoughts for add/modify/delete to this list.

I would like to expand this list to Search Marketing Friendy CMS, but since I had to pick either SEO or Serch Marketing forum for this post, I decied to pick SEO.

If you have any favorite CMS systems, feel free to share them as well.

[search_guru]

I am kind of surprised because of no replies.
Is it because nobody is using a content management system that is SEO or Search Marketing friendly?
OR Is it because I am new to the forums, and missing something by asking this question?

[Jill]

I dunno, maybe it was cuz you only waited 2 hours!

I don't have an answer for you though. I think most people here may create their own CMS.

[JeremyH]

I don't really understand the question.

Your doing "research on SEO friendly CMS/portals"?

Are you looking for CMS systems that have those features, or are you looking for portals like MSN or Yahoo that use CMS?

I guess the only thing really beneficial to contribute about CMS is I'm forced to use PaperThin's CMS in the office. It's OK, but very limiting. I wouldn't say it has any real SEO features, unless bulky code is now viewed as a SEO plus.

I swear it takes like three lines of code to write a sentence!

[search_guru]

>>Are you looking for CMS systems that have those features, or are you looking for portals like MSN or Yahoo that use CMS?

Not MSN or Yahoo portals. What I mean is that CMS that have capability to render content as received from two-three sources which may include an application. So typically that is called a portal application.

THanks for your insight into PaperThin CMS

[microbe]

I don't think any answer you may get here is going to be particularly helpful.

I have spent a lot of time over the last two years exploring a variety of CMS systems and none of them are universally useful. There are quite a few which are simply not very good at all, many which a suitable for some types of site and not others but none that I have tried have been utterly convincing as providing an ideal solution which will suit everyone.

I would suggest all you can do is look at sites like CMS Watch and Open Source CMS, and try the ones which look like they might suit the requirements of your project(s).

I see you are using Drupal at the moment, that is one which I thought really sucked - geekware, you could never hand it over to anyone normal to run.

I think the best (most powerful and versatile) of Open Source is probably Mambo, although if you don't mind spending a HUGE amount of time finding out how it works try Typo.

Not sure how helpful all that is and I do suspect if you want something which is really tailored to your requirements, then the only thing way to get that is to build it from scratch.

[Scottie]

I didn't answer because I've tried many CMS systems in the past few years and haven't been very happy with any of them. IMO, the answer is "none"- they all have quirks and learning curves and changes you have to make to make them spider-friendly.

[robmarketshare]

With more and more companies wanting to use a CMS it seems we are facing a problem ? IMO it is impossible to tell the client to st.. his CMS in order to improve his visibility in search engines en convert more sales. They just bought and implemented it.

So my question is what would CMS developers need to do (or leave out) to make a CMS that not only serves the right content but also serves the content in the right way.

It would be in the mutual interest of CMS and SEO.

[search_guru]

I started to research this topic in the first place, because we saw a big gap there. And that fact is validated by some of members' comments on this forum.

So any thoughts on glaring shortcomings of some leading or most popular CMS systems.

[search_guru]

So my question is what would CMS developers need to do (or leave out) to make a CMS that not only serves the right content but also serves the content in the right way.

It would be in the mutual interest of CMS and SEO.

I think that would be another way to put the same question. What would be your wishlist for an good SEO friendly CMS.

[Adrian]

Have you seen Plone?.
Not used it myself, but heard good things about it, and think it can do most of what you're after, either as standard or with an availible plug-in.

[gobayview]

I think the best (most powerful and versatile) of Open Source is probably Mambo

I would agree. And regarding SEO friendliness (noting that most engines CAN read and follow dynamically created URLs), out of the box it has an option for dynamic page titles and "search engine friendly" (though not particularly pretty) URLs. An optional component from Xaneon called "Extensions" creates truly word driven, directory mimicking URLs for the core components, and any others can be tweaked by hand. Really nice.

Spice

[Randy]

I have a feeling that CMS systems are going to be following much the same path that Shopping Cart software has.

Early on there was no thought whatsoever given to search engine friendliness from the cart developers. I don't think it was an intentional oversight on their part; more simply a case of them not understanding from the beginning what was and was not spider friendly.

In the last year or so we've seen a lot of development on that front from many cart creators. But it didn't really happen until carts became quite popular and users started not only clamoring for SE Friendliness, but explaining to the developers which specific issues created a problem.

CMS is now at pretty much the same critical mass point that carts were 18 months ago, where lots of people are using them and those users are bringing SE Friendliness or lack thereof to the forefront of the conversation.

Those CMS systems which ignore this will be left in the dust. Those that embrace the idea will stand to get a lot of free publicity.

[Plankie]

Plone is excellent, but steep learning curve, based on Zope and Python. Lots of modules to add, very scalable (if you are looking for a big site, this is the one to go for).

Mambo is PHP and MySQL based. Offers most of the issues you are looking for, slightly less mature than Plone, but very easy to use and with a big community behind it. Lots of templates and addons available.

In my previous job I went for Plone (60 big sites on a cluster of servers, 20 languages, more than 100000 webpages.

Now I am using Mambo mostly for bilingual sites, smaller but much easier to handle.

It all depends on what you need for your site.

[linux_lover]

I have coded my own CMS, and I basically create pages and page titles dynamically from a page name setting. All URL's are dynamically generated utilising mod_rewrite (to make them nice keyword filled friendly urls as opposed to variable entangled nightmares).

Mod rewrite kicks ass Theres only 1 'real' page on my CMS that populates everything else dependant on the database content saved via the cms admin interface.