Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!


Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 




From the folks who brought you High Rankings!

- - - - -

What Do You Prefer? Cms/coding From Scratch

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16 Catz


    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 19 April 2010 - 02:46 PM

You said it! goodjob.gif

I think the key point here is whether someone is comfortable with hand coding or not. If you do not understand the code behind the pages, a static site might not be best for you but if you do, it's really not that difficult to create.

CMS templates can be recoded as necessary if they're not search friendly, and if they can't, then use a different CMS.

That can be quite time consuming, it takes longer to fix someone else's code than to code something right from the start. Why waste time with a CMS when you don't need one? I can hand code a template I know I can trust to do what I want, don't have to waste time creating a database of information and don't have to worry about the database errors occurring.

It's true, understanding the basic HTML/XHTML and CSS code that creates the foundation every web page built upon is becoming a lost art these days but those that can do it, should. It can lead to much faster page loads and far fewer errors along the way.

It's not for everyone but for those who can...if the site is simple and not too large, why not?

But such a site (CMS) would look sterile, uniform, inflexible, and it would be just another in a mass of millions of cookie-cutter design sites.

Big part of the problem. Step into line, be like everyone else, follow these computerized steps...what happened to creativity?

Nonetheless, I'm beginning to feel like they'll have to pry my static HTML from my cold dead fingers.

Ancients Unite! A CMS can be convenient but it isn't always best. Sometimes they are really necessary and a huge help but other times, the lack of control you have with a CMS (not the template but the program itself) is just not worth it.

#17 Scottie


    Psycho Mom

  • Admin
  • 6,294 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC

Posted 20 April 2010 - 01:46 PM

Like most answers around here... it depends.

I have a very old script that I've used since 2004 or so... I started to change it over to Drupal and realized that it simply does what I need. So I tweaked it and repurposed it for some new sites I'm working on- it's lean and efficient. It means there are a dozen or so pages outside of the script that are essentially hand-coded with some SSI includes, but that's no biggie.

I've got a site with a couple hundred pages all hand-coded on it from 2002... Like Michael, the idea of sucking all that old mess into a CMS is just overwhelming. It would all still have to be touched. But there's no way I'd build a community site like that again without a CMS and I am slowly converting it over as needed.

The original question though was if one was "better" for SEO and the answer is the same as previous ones... no, there's not a "better" choice for SEO. It's all in what you do with what you build.

#18 jimcol51


    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 April 2010 - 03:09 PM

QUOTE(Hic @ Apr 10 2010, 07:07 AM) View Post
Hi ...

SEO speaking, what do you prefer? coding a website from scratch or setting up a platform like wordpress or drupal ?


As others have pointed out, it depends. I personally do more HTML sites than CMS, but that's primarily due to customer needs. Unless it's a blog or a site that needs a database, I usually opt for HTML. I use Dreamweaver because for most things, it's faster. I like that I can see the results and the HTML code at the same time and I can edit the code as necessary (DW is not perfect).

From an SEO point of view, as I'm still fairly new at it, it's easier to optimize a static site than a dynamic one. Maybe as I build up more experience I will come to feel as others, that there is no difference after all.

#19 1dmf


    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 22 April 2010 - 06:20 AM

I like to code everything by hand. WYSIWYG programs may seem ok, but if you don't actually understand how to do things properly by hand, you just end up with crap code, tables, in tables, in tables, dodgy JS code, and a whole load of junk, which might look OK in the WYSIWYG editor, but if you look at the source code it's a complete mess of tag soup.

If you were buying a peice of furniture, would you rather have a prdocution line, robot made piece of junk, or something that was hand crafted by a skilled professional?

An when it comes to code, the hand crafted pages don't come with the same price markup that a decent peice of furniture would!

#20 RWare1


    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 26 April 2010 - 11:28 PM

QUOTE(Michael Martinez @ Apr 19 2010, 01:30 PM) View Post
I'm currently updating the HTML code for about 50,000 pages of content that were created over the past 13 years. We've never used a CMS for that content. It grew by accretion.

Michael, I'd love to here more about how you manage the site, tools you use etc. I've been doing mine by hand and everytime I look at a CMS I decide to stay static. I like the simplicity of static. No db to break, no scripting language to hack, less overall attack surface, more flexibility, etc.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
No new posts or registrations allowed.