INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS
Come Join Us!
Are you a
Computer / IT professional?
Join Tek-Tips now!
- Talk With Other Members
- Be Notified Of Responses
To Your Posts
- Keyword Search
- One-Click Access To Your
Favorite Forums
- Automated Signatures
On Your Posts
- Best Of All, It's Free!
*Tek-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.
Partner With Us!
"Best Of Breed" Forums Add Stickiness To Your Site
(Download This Button Today!)
Feedback
"...A lot of the information I've found at this site would've taken me forever if I'd have attempted to research it on my own. Thanks again."
Geography
Where in the world do Tek-Tips members come from?
|
usual cost of a custom web design
|
|
I would agree that they are expensive but I have found that some people are more impressed by a fancy sales pitch involving a slick presentation rather than someone who can get the job done well.
On the other hand, there are many tools available which make authoring a web site appear to be so easy, that anyone can do it. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
I was not impressed by their presentation at all. Depending on the type of website required, that MAY be an OK price. It just depends on whether you get the proper bang for your buck that you need.
That said, it is a good thing I am too poor to hire anyone to build and maintain my website. For the price they charge, I seriously doubt that they could even begin to tackle my requirements for a website, especially since there are no tools available, to my knowledge, other than those I designed and wrote myself that would do the job. mmerlinn
http://mmerlinn.com
Poor people do not hire employees. If you soak the rich, who are you going to work for?
"We've found by experience that people who are careless and sloppy writers are usually also careless and sloppy at thinking and coding. Answering questions for careless and sloppy thinkers is not rewarding." - Eric Raymond |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
31 Jul 12 9:34 |
This is actually common pricing. There is a great expense in simply determining what a site should contain and do. That $2500 in discovery and planning could be below actual cost if the client has no idea what they are doing online. I've worked on projects where this stage lasted for months. $2500 would not cover the time.
I would be wary of the "per page cost" in a CMS. If the client is authoring their own pages, they should not have to pay per page. That cost might be reasonable if the designer is providing copy-writing. |
|
Hey,
Thanks for all of the advice - I agree, there is usually a lot of work done in the discovery, plus this company seems to be combining a lot of SEO/online marketing fused into their websites.
CODE --> mmerlinFor the price they charge, I seriously doubt that they could even begin to tackle my requirements for a website, especially since there are no tools available, to my knowledge, other than those I designed and wrote myself that would do the job.
what kind of tools would you be talking about? |
|
what kind of tools would you be talking about
Tools to automatically build pages, no two of which are laid out the same (layout AND content are different, not just content), from a database without spending hours per page. Tools to conceive, generate, and maintain all links, even when they change. Tools to decide what goes on a page and when. Tools to decide when a page needs to be rebuilt. Generally tools that take all of the drudgery and high cost out of building and maintaining a website.
I have seen others who are using rudimentary tools that would do bits and pieces of my job, but based on the output, they all appear to be custom built tools, therefore either not available and/or will not run in a different environment.
Unless you are building pages with very complicated and constantly changing layout (not just content), there are plenty of website builder tools out there to do your job. If they won't or can't do it the way you need or want, then you will need to design and build your own tools to get the job done.
Since the contents of my site are database driven, all of my tools are written in FoxPro. I find it much easier and more efficient to spend 2 hours inputting and updating a database, then 10 minutes later generating and uploading a hundred or so new and/or totally reformatted pages to the web, than to spend hours on a handful of pages. And I NEVER need to debug the pages for bad links, bad formatting, or whatever.
The unfortunate aspect is that updating custom tools to keep up with web technology is a pain. In my case, I have just accepted the fact that as long as the site does what I want it to do, there is no reason fix what is not broken, even though it may look dated, may look amateurish, and may not conform to standards generally accepted today.
mmerlinn
http://mmerlinn.com
Poor people do not hire employees. If you soak the rich, who are you going to work for?
"We've found by experience that people who are careless and sloppy writers are usually also careless and sloppy at thinking and coding. Answering questions for careless and sloppy thinkers is not rewarding." - Eric Raymond |
|
Ummm...
Quote (mmerlin)I was not impressed by their presentation at all.
...
For the price they charge, I seriously doubt that they could even begin to tackle my requirements for a website...
Mmkay.
Follows link http://mmerlinn.com
 *blinded*
You should add a frontpage warning to use that site only with shades on! 
As to the rest: yeah. You need knowledge in PHP or ASP (.Net or .not) or something for an purely data-driven (cataloguish) site like yours. “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family.” (Kofi Annan)
Oppose SOPA, PIPA, ACTA; measures to curb freedom of information under whatever name whatsoever. |
|
I doubt if any, off the shelf, CMS system would cope with a latge database driven website. As for designing tools for creating pages, I don't see the point. The data is read from a database and is then formatted to populate relevant pages automatically. If pages have to be created in order to keep the process slick and fast, I would suggest the created pages / selected datasets are too large.
The company mentioned in the original post are pitching to their chosen market place and if they are getting the work, then they have got their pricing structure correct. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
Quote:I doubt if any, off the shelf, CMS system would cope with a large database driven website
Erm... that's precisely what CMSs are designed to do, though it takes some initial setting up before you're up and running.
I suspect that if you were starting to build your website today, you'd be looking at a CMS-based solution rather than the spitting static pages out of FoxPro approach.
Whether it's worth the effort of moving to that set-up when you're happy with what you have is another question. I've still got a couple of static page sites from back in the day which'll probably stay that way, but I don't think I'll ever build another one like that. -- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd |
|
Quote (Chris)
Quote (Keith)I doubt if any, off the shelf, CMS system would cope with a large database driven website
Erm... that's precisely what CMSs are designed to do, though it takes some initial setting up before you're up and running.
I was confused by the comment as well. I would even go as far to say that there is very little initial setting up. One does not even need to learn a web scripting language. A free GPL CMS like Drupal (certainly off the shelf) allows you to create custom content types with whatever data fields are necessary. Content tagging and in-browser query tools (aka "Views") allow you to display data in any way you like. |
|
so, overall you are a fan of drupal? |
|
Quote:
Erm... that's precisely what CMSs are designed to do, though it takes some initial setting up before you're up and running.
CMS's were designed to allow content of a website to be easily changed by the client rather than needing the site designer to make the changes. It takes a lot more than some initial setting up before the site is anywhere near useable.
The main problem is that the designer of the CMS has had to allow for any configuration a site designer may require so has ended up with a system so complicated, it takes a long time to learn the CMS system itself.
Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
1 Aug 12 15:04 |
primorudy, I don't like to call myself a fan of anything but Drupal is serving me well.
I've used my own CMS, Mambo/Joomla, and WordPress but settled on Drupal for the past several years.
A visit to drupalgardens.com will illustrate how much can be done without a developer or a designer. The point of entry is much simpler than Keith makes it out to be ...but Drupal has the headroom to get as complicated as you want it. |
|
I know some people who use CMS for their websites and are more than happy with the result. The point of entry, to a CMS, is very simple but a fully integrated, database driven website is a world away from that point. By the time you have worked out which of the 1000's of modules to integrate with your core application and set up all the parameters required, chances are you will have lost the will to live.
Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
1 Aug 12 17:39 |
On the surface, that comment seems to imply that a CMS is not a database driven website. And that does not make any sense. |
|
It doesn't imply anything of the sort but if a CMS is as simple to use as you say, why are you rolling your own? Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
Using a GPL CMS like Drupal is not "rolling my own".
I suspect we are having two different conversations. |
|
I just slapped this database driven web site together to demonstrate the ease of creation within a web browser.
While it only has 4 records, one could easily import a CSV table of many thousands (millions) of rows.
http://cmsmatrix.drupalgardens.com/ |
|
we all know its easy, but is it useful, and will it pan out to make you more money in the long run if you code everything from scratch? |
|
You can still create custom programming for an open source CMS. That is the core concept of open source and modules/extensions.
The benefit of building onto an existing CMS framework is that you already have the bread and butter stuff done for you. You don't need to bother with programming user logins, user groups, permissions, etc.
And you've got several thousand eyes on the core CMS so you're certain to have a more stable/secure system than if you did it alone.
Making money is how you market yourself and what value you really provide to a client. It has very little to do with your choice between your own CMS and an open source CMS. You could make more money with a closed system that only you know how to develop... until your client gets wise and goes to a more open system that has a larger pool of designers/developers from which they can choose competitively based on the quality of service/support and on cost.
I certainly was not harmed by moving from my own CMS to Drupal. Life is easier and much more productive/profitable when I have thousands of people that can help. |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
2 Aug 12 11:12 |
6 years 19 weeks (what Drupal.org tells me since I registered)
I've used DrupalGardens.org for one day.
There's a lot more one can do with full control of your own server and your own Drupal installation but I was surprised how much could be done on DrupalGardens with the basic/free account.
The bar has been lowered for average folks to get an online presence. That means web developers/designers that expect to stay in the game need to raise their service level. I've seen many on forums drop out of the business because they did not choose the assistance of a CMS. They could not keep up to client expectations. |
|
Websites, at least those done professionally, cost 2K+. Depending on may factors of course and I find that most websites, at least for small businesses, end up costing between 3-5K.
Many clients DO NOT SEE the value in all the preliminary work and strategy and will find someone who will make them a site for $400. Then they come to me and say how disappointed they are and how the site doesn't do this and that. Then I tell them why. Lots of images and imagemaps, use of tables (although not as much anymore), poorly structured coding, no real site plan so its just taped together and on and on.
Then they whine again about my price and I ask them how long did this site take and are they happy with it? Usually took longer than they wanted and they are miserable with the final product.
Moral is YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
As for this CMS discussion, the current crop (WP/Drupal/Joomla) all do a great job from small to large sites. Depending on the requirements some custom coding has to be done but the bulk of it has already been covered. I do not understand why anyone would want to use a fully custom CMS. Unless you have the budget to ALSO create documentation for it and then maintain it properly. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
i think the custom cms's do better in the search engines |
|
primorudy -- I respectfully disagree. It's how the output'd content is semantically structured and weather the pages are coded to current SEO best practices.
Beyond that your statement is factually inaccurate. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
not if you are aware of SEO best practices, and it allows you to be more creative and come up with ideas for SEO that you wouldn't have thought of before |
|
in the end i think google rewards creativity |
|
Quote:
not if you are aware of SEO best practices, and it allows you to be more creative and come up with ideas for SEO that you wouldn't have thought of before
This can all be addressed through ANY CMS. Like I said it's how you code your site and set up your CMS. I can set up custom fields in a Wordpress Install for each post that i can call into any relevant tag or anywhere on the page for that matter. It's all the content's responsibility to be proper, semantic and structures properly.
I wish Google rewarded creativity. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
execpt when you are doing things from scratch ideas dawn on you throughout the process that would not have dawned if you didnt put the work in |
|
What does one have to do with the other? Do all your products have 100% of the specs defined in the beginning? If that's the case then how do your products evolve?
Have you developed a site using any of the CMS out there. If you have then you will know that your argument is baseless and really makes no sense. For SEO THE BACK END DOESN'T MATTER. Search engines don't know what or how your data is stored. The output is all that matters. Since that is the case WHAT DOES ONE CMS have to do with the other as far as SEO???
The CMS has NOTHING to do with WHAT the product will finally do so I do not understand WHAT your argument is nor do I quite get
Quote:
execpt when you are doing things from scratch ideas dawn on you throughout the process that would not have dawned if you didnt put the work in
Using WP/DRUPAL/JOOMLA doesn't mean any less work on the strategy part. Just less work on the development side. SEO/CMS are mutually independent and have NO bearing on SEO. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
I have been looking at Drupalgardens and the free website option. I see no mention of setting up a database, have I missed it or is that not available in the free version. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
Quote (darryncooke)primorudy -- I respectfully disagree. It's how the output'd content is semantically structured and weather the pages are coded to current SEO best practices.
No it isn't, it never has been and probably never will be!
Several of the search engine spokes men|women|persons have stated MANY, MANY times that they really don't care about how a document is coded or how much code there is in the document, (the so-called non-existent "code to content ratio").
The statement from Vanessa Fox was "We read what we want, and ignore the rest"
http://videos.webpronews.com/2006/12/vanessa-fox-c...
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
chris, what i meant to say and i think it was misunderstood was that for SEO the CMS doesn't matter. its whats outputted on the front end that counts. And how can code not count when we look at H1 and bold tags as well as title tags, etc. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
Actually the "best SEO practice" is to ignore what the "experts" tell you/us/everybody is "what search engines want". SEs want documents that are created for search engine USERS not ones created especially for their indexing algorithm.
Sure SEs may use headings, bold, strong etc etc. But simply decause you use "semantic" coding does NOT mean your document URL will fare better for Search that a document URL that does not, and "SEO by numbers" does not work at all anymore. It never did work especially well, but the recent major updates have made sure it has had its day.
Search engines want the CONTENT served from the URL, and it really does not matter if it is in tables, lists, divs, sections or any other kind of element that yo choose to use.
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
Chris you are absolutely right and I completely agree. Content is king. But not matter what the engine's say I don't believe that THATS all there is. And they shouldn't tell us everything otherwise that would lead to SEO anarchy. I tell all my clients that content and backlinks are the 2 most important aspects of SEO.
At the same time there are on-page optimization as well that ensures one page does better than the other assuming content is similar and just as good. im not talking about tables versus div but rater
CODE<a href="link.html><img src="image.jpg" /></a>
and
CODE<a href="link.html title="Site name homepage"><img src="sitename-logo.jpg" alt="Site Name" /></a> Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
what i am saying, is that when you code things from scratch, it opens up doors (because you have to think more) and allows you to think outside the box and actually "discover" SEO strategies. The best way to do SEO is to think ahead and think "What would Google want to do?"
I am saying this assuming you are already an SEO expert.
Also, it does matter how your site is coded when it comes to SEO |
|
Quote (primorudy)The best way to do SEO is to think ahead and think "What would Google want to do?"
You do NOT need to think "what would Google do/want" you need to think "What do USERS want"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdmzKzuXurY
Think like a Google user NOT an piece of software, it's really VERY easy because you ARE a Google user.
Quote (primorudy)I am saying this assuming you are already an SEO expert.
Hopefully you are not refering to myself as an "expert", while I have been studying Search and search engines for close to twenty years, I do not profess to be an "expert" and never will.
The coding does NOT matter, SE crawlers and indexers have to deal with EVERYTHING from hand coded documents, with perfect structure to documents created in MS Word or MS Publisher.
For example: page 'A' has been hand coded in perfectly structured HTML but is using "auto blogging" or "scraper" tools and then "spun" to generate the content.
Document 'B' is on EXACTLY the same topic but has been written (or rewritten) from human being. Sure it pretty much uses all the same words as 'A' does, but is a unique work. Should 'A' be shown to users in preference to 'B' because the HTML code is "neater"?
You're a Google user which one would you prefer to read on that particular topic?
Certainly there are some elements that emphasise or give more importance to the text contained within the tags, and elements that provide structure to the document, but having your document pass the "W3c spell check" does NOT give that document any kind of advantage for Search.
Google only want ONE THING, and that is to show the best results for their users queries. Where does the HTML code come into that requirement?
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
coding does matter. website speed is taken into consideration. Tables and fieldsets aren't good for SEO and you are supposed to do external CSS and javascript
the SEO expert thing was a generality for everyone that would be reading it. |
|
This conversation is making me more confused than the people asking questions. I assumed most of this was known.
Quote (primorudy)what i am saying, is that when you code things from scratch, it opens up doors (because you have to think more) and allows you to think outside the box and actually "discover" SEO strategies.
An open source CMS allows you to code things from scratch. That is what open source means! You are not typing these posts on a pair of coconuts and bamboo that you have fashioned into a computing device. You are relying on the existing work of Apple, Microsoft, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, etc to have created a platform to create code. A GPL CMS is no different. It is just another platform to get you farther than what you could do alone. You still have every option to hack up and create new code.
Quote (Keith)I have been looking at Drupalgardens and the free website option. I see no mention of setting up a database, have I missed it or is that not available in the free version.
A CMS is a database! How is content managed otherwise?
The demo site above was created with the free version. I created a custom content type with 4 fields: title, description, license, and URL. Then I enabled the optional Views module to create the query that is shown at http://cmsmatrix.drupalgardens.com/matrix |
|
I'm afraid I will have to disagree with your claim that a CMS is database. A CMS is a collection of modules which can be connected together to create a website. A database is a collection of tables which can be queried to create reports.
As for creating the site in 15 minutes, it may well be possible but not for a newcomer to the software. You say you created a custom content type, is that controlled under Content?
I am not being difficult on purpose but I have seen these claims of easy to use software before, usually by people with many years of experience. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
6 Aug 12 15:28 |
Keith, it is difficult to share any knowledge with someone who disagrees with blatant facts. You cannot step forward until you let loose of wrong beliefs. A CMS is a database. Most CMS cannot function without a database.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_mana...
There is a column that shows the required databases to power these CMS's.
Just like in regular database terminology, relating different content types (tables) in Drupal is called a relationship.
https://www.google.com/search?q=drupal+relationshi...
To create a new content type at DrupalGardens...
Structure->Content Types->Add content type
|
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
6 Aug 12 15:32 |
|
spamjim is right and I was thinking the same way. A CMS without a database is just useless. In fact CMS is synonymous with database as you need one to store the data. How else is the thing supposed to work. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
I am not disputing that it uses a database to store and manipulate data but a CMS is a CMS. My SATNAV would be useless without a database to store data but it is still a SATNAV.
Back to the Drupal questions.
Is it possible to import an existing table into the CMS's database or has each field to be created separately? Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
Quote (spamjim)Keith, it is difficult to share any knowledge with someone who disagrees with blatant facts. You cannot step forward until you let loose of wrong beliefs. A CMS is a database. Most CMS cannot function without a database.
Quote (darryncooke)spamjim is right and I was thinking the same way. A CMS without a database is just useless. In fact CMS is synonymous with database as you need one to store the data.
Actually you are both wrong! A CMS is simply an INTERFACE to a data store/database NOT the data store/database itself, so, if we are going to argue semantics it is somewhat important to get them right. Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
Quote (primorudy)coding does matter. website speed is taken into consideration.
Says who???
Google have certainly SUGGESTED that "speed" MAY be used as a factor but have yet to quantify what " speed" actually means.
Is it the milliseconds it takes for the server to spit out the source code, which is the ONLY thing that can actually be measured by a SE useragent.
Is it the network latency? which is no real measure of "speed" given that Google datacentres are spread around the globe, so should your URLs be "judged" on the server being in Germany (for instance) and the crawler that last visited the URI was from a Google datacentre in India or Australia??
Or maybe it's the rendering time? Which of course can be different depending on the browser and client machine, and of course given that Google's system does NOT load or trigger javascripts, load or render styles, or load images when the URL is requested they do not actually know that either.
What it is the yardstick that "average speed" is measured by?
Is it by URLs on the same server?
The same CIDR allocation?
The same country?
The same continent?
The same marketplace?
The same TLD/ccTLD?
Or something else?
If "coding" matters, how is it that pages created with a crappy WYSI[almostWY[might]G "page builder can be found on "page one" of the results?
Quote (primorudy)Tables and fieldsets aren't good for SEO and you are supposed to do external CSS and javascript
Says who???? Some clueless "expert" who doesn't know his gluteus maximus from his olecranon
Search engineers have NEVER said any such thing, they have NEVER even hinted at that being the case. IN fact ALL the SE spokes men|women|persons say unequivocally the EXACT opposite.
So please, if you are going to tell us all about these "factors" try and get some REAL FACTS not SEOMoz style pseudo scientific bull crap and "buzz phrases" that happen to be "in vogue".
The World of Search is full of speculation, supposition, mis-information, guesswork and total lies. Do NOT add to it.
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
all i am saying is. Bar everything else is the same except for the coding (speed, among other things, like the use of CSS instead of tables) I would go with the faster and better coded site outranking the other site.
I have seen sites where fieldsets don't rank well. I am not saying it is one of the biggest factors, like getting links persay, but I am saying that it is a part of crossing your T's and dotting your I's |
|
Quote (Chris)A CMS is simply an INTERFACE to a data store/database NOT the data store/database itself
I don't understand why this topic has degraded to argued semantics of the finest definitions of "SEO", "coding", "CMS", and "database".
Chris' reasoning means that Microsoft Access, FileMaker Pro, and MySQL are not databases... because those apps are interfaces to data tables. Without allowing an interface, XLS/TXT/CSV files are databases. While that limited definition is basically accurate ( https://www.google.com/search?q=define+database) it is certainly not marketable to anyone that really needs to manipulate that data.
Quote (Keith)Is it possible to import an existing table into the CMS's database or has each field to be created separately?
Like any other database, you would need to define each field (column) type. But each row (of actual data) could be mass imported. Each row or record is known as a "node" in Drupal.
https://drupal.org/project/node_import (Drupal 6)
https://drupal.org/project/feeds (Drupal 7)
Drupal continues to evolve in data management by introducing entities... https://drupal.org/node/1261744
And RDF... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcPf4PeF57Y
|
|
Quote (primorudy)Tables and fieldsets aren't good for SEO and you are supposed to do external CSS and javascript
Quote (Chris)Says who???? Some clueless "expert" who doesn't know his gluteus maximus from his olecranon
A distinction of "tables" is necessary. Valid tables with structured tabular data are suited for SEO. Tables used for page layout are not suited for SEO.
Quote (primorudy)coding does matter. website speed is taken into consideration.
Quote (Chris)Says who???
I'll bite. I say so. :) Slow loading web sites do not attract as many page views as more efficient sites. Google can track how quickly a page loads, how long people stay on pages, and how often those pages are accessed. While there is plenty of mystery regarding Google's ranking methods, it is common knowledge that page popularity is a major factor. A site cannot be popular if the user is annoyed with slow page loads. |
|
Spmjim,
How do you determine page speed? Like Christ said its a very ambiguous term that is used.
Google also doesn't know site data as far as how long a user is on the site or what the bounce rate is etc. unless you share that info with them how would they know that i visited site X and waited 20 seconds for the page to load and then left 20 seconds later?
I know, conspiracy theories aside please, it is possible but I highly doubt it. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
I have managed to wean myself off using tables for page layout as CSS is far more powerful and easier to work with but is there any proof that using tables for layout is any worse than using CSS. I have a very old dynamic site which uses tables for layout of the whole site and is right at the top of the list in the major search engines. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
7 Aug 12 12:15 |
Quote (Darryn)Google also doesn't know site data as far as how long a user is on the site or what the bounce rate is etc. unless you share that info with them how would they know that i visited site X and waited 20 seconds for the page to load and then left 20 seconds later?
You can put on the foil hat now. We're all being watched.
Meet Google Analytics... used on this forum and most every other competently constructed site. Google doesn't give this tool to web developers because of altruism. Web developers are only getting 10% of the usefulness of GA. Google snags the other 90%.
Google is not alone in capturing human data. User-installed search bars (Google, Bing, Yahoo) also snoop and measure content relevance based on human behavior. Some SE's with client-side controls might even get their data by reading personalized content customized for an authenticated user (imagine a search engine indexing some content beyond your password protected wall).
Here's an example of a SE getting data from users instead of from actually indexing a site:
http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheatin...
There's very few of us that actually surf the web alone.
Quote (Keith)is there any proof that using tables for layout is any worse than using CSS
It is not directly related but closely associated in practice. A page constructed from tables is less likely to have semantic markup and a logical flow. A SE will struggle a bit more to make sense of content that zig zags among multiple table cells. (although divs can be sloppily structured as well - see Adobe Muse) |
|
to put it in logical terms:
website speed = the time it takes for your site to load
LOL
camon man quit trying to play devils advocate |
|
primorudy - the reason i ask that is because the number is arbitrary.
You in Los Angeles and say me in Sydney would have a drastically different time. There are also many different points to calculate from.
Are you calculating based on time for first bit or complete download of info?
I can do a website speed test at pingdom.com and get a respectable time of 2seconds but in reality when I go to the site it is more like 5 or 6.
There are many factors that effect load time so that is why site speed would have to be defined so that a developer would know what they are being judged on accurately.
SPAMJIM
I do not know what their EULA and Privacy Policy is but I do not think they can use that data for their benefit without our approval. Im not saying that in an idealistic manner, but lets assume for arguments sake that companies actually do what they say they will with information. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
7 Aug 12 16:38 |
Darryn, those that issue browser bar add-ons and the "suggested sites" "feature" of IE all have privacy notices that are ignored by most users when they install/enable. Even the license web developers use for GA is pretty scary but we use it anyway. |
|
I totally agree with you. But I just like to assume that people/companies will do what they say they will. I have a love for disappointment. Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
Quote (spamjim)Chris' reasoning means that Microsoft Access, FileMaker Pro, and MySQL are not databases... because those apps are interfaces to data tables. Without allowing an interface, XLS/TXT/CSV files are databases. While that limited definition is basically accurate ( https://www.google.com/search?q=define+database) it is certainly not marketable to anyone that really needs to manipulate that data.
Actually MS Access (the application) and FileMaker Pro (the application) (and there is a clue in the name there) ARE simply interfaces that allow one to create and manipulate data in their respective database formats, and each Access .mdb file can become a database server, as it does NOT need MS Access ((the application)) to be on the machine the data is being accessed on. Merely that the operating system on the machine has ODBC capabilities.
Actually MySQL is a database SERVER, the MySQL database itself is a datafile, stored on, or accessible to, the host machine.
The fact is, that ANYTHING that has organised data contained within its structure IS a database by definition.
It seems that you have the distinction between what is a database and what is a database server somewhat intermingled, and yes I know, so have ~75% of the people who write articles and tutorials etc. This is the reason I am anally retentive pedantic about terminology. Using correct terminology in the discourse is vitally important if we are to be unambiguous about the whole subject, and this thread appears to stand testament to that.
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
Quote (darryncooke)You in Los Angeles and say me in Sydney would have a drastically different time. There are also many different points to calculate from.
Are you calculating based on time for first bit or complete download of info?
I can do a website speed test at pingdom.com and get a respectable time of 2seconds but in reality when I go to the site it is more like 5 or 6.
There are many factors that effect load time so that is why site speed would have to be defined so that a developer would know what they are being judged on accurately.
My point precisely.
"site speed" without some qualifiers is an arbitrary concept, which of course is why SEs will never quantify it.
As a concept it has the "experts" scrabbling about looking for clues on what is a "good speed" for a URL to be delivered to | loaded by | rendered by a useragent. Just like "Pavlov's dog" they respond to Matt Cutts offering a tit-bit and they are not merely salivating but are champing at the bit to be the first with the nitty-gritty an exciting new factor.
So while they are pratting about to find this out and/or prattling on about how important it is, the SE software engineers can have yet another good laugh at their behaviour.
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
Quote (Chris)...the MySQL database itself is a datafile, stored on, or accessible to, the host machine.
Why call it a "MySQL database" if it might have InnoDB for storage?
Quote (Chris)The fact is, that ANYTHING that has organised data contained within its structure IS a database by definition.
You have just defined a CMS as a database. If you are going to argue semantics it is somewhat important that you do not argue with yourself. :) |
|
Back to CMS again.
Is there a management interface which gives a client limited access to their site so that they can edit the content? The reason I ask this is that I know what reaction I would get if I presented some of my clients anything more complicated than a single edit window and an upload button. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
Quote:Back to CMS again.
Is there a management interface which gives a client limited access to their site so that they can edit the content?
Yes there is. In fact that's one of the main points in having one.
I'll leave spamjim to talk about Drupal, but Wordpress has quite a sophisticated management interface where you can give different users different levels of access. So you can give your clients sign-ons that'll let them edit pages but not do anything more dangerous.
I've done Wordpress-based sites for very non-techie clients which they're delighted to be able to maintain, with barely any involvement by me. -- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd |
|
I have set up a basic site in Drupal but as I haven't got a clue how to use it, the process has taken ages to get to a point which would take me a few hours doing it 'the old way'.
I know there are plenty of instructions, tutorials and forums around but I tend to be able to learn much quicker by doing rather than reading about it.
There is no point asking which is the best CMS out ther as everyone will just have their favourite rather than give a definitive answer. Keith
www.studiosoft.co.uk |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
8 Aug 12 11:55 |
Quote (Keith)Back to CMS again.
Is there a management interface which gives a client limited access to their site so that they can edit the content?
All major CMS's have this ability. Depending on the CMS, you can further limit what type of content they can add (calendar event, page article, menu item, etc). You can also limit whether or not they can add full HTML or sanitized HTML (without dangerous JS or lousy MSWord markup).
In just one of many scenarios, you can set up user groups that can create content but cannot edit it. From there, an editor group can review/edit that content and promote it to be published.
On a multi-lingual site, you could limit a user or group to have access to create/edit pages for their language, without giving them control of content for any other language. |
|
Quote:You have just defined a CMS as a database.
How????
A CMS application is a collection of scripts. It has no data within it's structure. It has to connect to an data source that is from an external provider.
Does Joomla! come complete with all the data you want already available??
Are you going to tell me next that a Forum is also a "database"?
'Blogging' software, forum software and CMS software are applications that provide a means of collecting and storing data to, and retrieving and displaying data from a data storage system. Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
Back to content managment system
With the release of Joomla! 2.5 I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone, it really is much more end user friendly than earlier incarnations, though I do recommend changing the default editor to CKEditor, and disabling CodeMirror if you use Firefox.
I haven't "test driven" Drupal in a long while, but one can only hope that it too has improved on the "Built by geeks for geeks" earlier versions.
Wordpress 3.x is Ok but be aware of it's colendar like status on a default installation.
Chris.
Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
9 Aug 12 11:04 |
Chris, the semantics nonsense over the word 'database' is tiring. Words are being pulled out of context for some pointless and entirely unproductive debate. It was recognized by all that a database is part of a CMS. A CMS alone does not equal a database. A CMS is a system that can hold multiple parts, including database tables. That is how a CMS is a database.
When you go to your doctor because your arm hurts, I doubt that your doctor corrects you by saying: "No, you are wrong. It is not your arm that hurts. It is your fractured humerus. Your arm is something different."
You've been pointlessly arguing the word "database" when you really seem to have trouble understanding the word "system". |
|
So have we come to a consensus on the definition of a database or do I need to call up Bill Gates and get his $.02? Darryn Cooke
www.darryncooke.com | Marketing and Creative Services |
|
|
apepp (TechnicalUser) |
5 Sep 12 22:22 |
...this thread certainly grew! No mention of modx cms though so I have put this on the table. The cms I use most these days:
http://modx.com/ Andrew
==============
www.apepp.info - Graphic Design and Web Design, Exeter, Devon, UK.
============== |
|
I have really enjoyed this thread, thanks to you all. I started out with PHPNuke, then to Mambo, over to Joomla next because of how some of the guys were treated when Mambo started to outgrow it's Open source terminology. I took a close look at Drupal but could not get that name out of my head, if you get my drift. Still a good Content management system. They all have their pro's and cons. I tried a management system without the database but that's all it was, a bunch of files without a way to store content or data. Heck, I can do that by myself with just plain pages.
Your data is stored in a MySql (Joomla and Nuke) database which most of you know already and these are managed by the user interface (system) so you can't hardly have a good CMS without a database.
I looked at mmerlinn's site and to me it looked like you can serve yourself better if you loaded all your data into a well constructed database, wrote some queries, and designed some pages to display your results. What you have there seems like the same thing could have been placed on simple HTML pages.
I always thought the reason for making it hard to use tables for anything besides data was to make it hard for cowboy coders to build all those websites, thus, taking jobs away from people who attended schools to do just that and I must say, job well done. I have talked to hundreds of these builders that have given up, just because they do not get CSS. That one move to use CSS probably wrecked 1000's of backyard page builders abilities to build pages so they give up. |
|
|
spamjim (Instructor) |
11 Sep 12 10:18 |
Tables were never intended for graphic design. The original HTML specifications show that they were only intended for tabular data. Tables were just used by designers that had no other option for graphic design at the time. I would probably give up if I had to move from CSS back to table design.
I've also encountered many who have dropped out of the web design game because they were forced to change their methods. It seems like a silly reason. Web design is so young and its technology is so impermanent that you can't really be tied to a singular design technique. |
|
|
apepp (TechnicalUser) |
11 Sep 12 10:33 |
...sure...it's hard to keep up with it all moving so faster towards something more consistent, it's taking a while, they've been trying for years...now with mobile devices the landscape is even bigger these days...do a fixed width site the same cost as a responsive one? I know i wouldn't price them the same...depending on the project i guess, but in some circumstances it can be more cost effective to go straight for responsive perhaps... Andrew
==============
www.apepp.info - Graphic Design and Web Design, Exeter, Devon, UK.
============== |
|
|
 |
|
Talk To Other Members
Read More Threads Like This One