HTML v/s Blogging Software

[DWR]

I notice that Steve has an HTML site with the articles being sectioned onto a Wordpress blog. I am presently starting a site that is HTML only, but would be curious as to what / how significant an advantage it would be to used the blogging software, particularly pertaining to building traffic (for instance, I know that Wordpress autopings Technorati).

If there are indeed significant advantages, what would be some ways to bring those advantages to plain HTML? I have already created an RSS feed manually (not sure if using something like Feedburner would hold any advantage over a homemade XML file).

I would love to hear any opinions on this, as at this early stage I am able to be open to radical changes before reader familiarity sets in.

[JimOfferman]

A blog (or CMS) is just much easier to maintain in the long run. It's much more automatic - I add a new article to my blog and my RSS feed is updated for me. Search, permalinks, comments, etc. - most of those are 'free' with a blog, hard work when you're doing html.

The advantage of feedburner (and similar services) is that it gives you, the owner, a lot of statistics on who uses what to read your feeds and you can use it to publish your feeds to other sites - increasing your exposure.

Why don't you try a hosted blog solution (i.e. www.blogger.com, WordPress.com » Get a Free Blog Here) to see if it suits you? With WordPress, you can always export all your posts and then import them in your self hosted version later.

Ohw, and I think all of Steve's site is in WordPress - except for the forums.

[ssmorgan]

Originally Posted by DWR

how significant an advantage it would be to used the blogging software, particularly pertaining to building traffic (for instance, I know that Wordpress autopings Technorati).

For some reason, the search engines tend to index blog entries faster than a website page.

I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that if you maintain your blog well, and consistently add fresh and valuable content, over time, you will get a lot of visitors from the SE faster than you would have if you had a regular website.

A hosted blog that JimOfferman refers to is a great approach, and it's a lot easier than it seems.

The advantage of regular html website is that you have more control over the layout and organization and it could be more structured than a blog.

Have you thought about having both a website and a blog? They can be nice complements to each other.

Hope this helps,

Sherif

[Phil Newton]

There are a couple of advantages with using blog software instead of manually updating everything:

1) Quicker to add new entries.
2) You can add entries from any computer, so you don't need to upload any files and keep them all in synch.
3) Automatically set up things for comments and pingbacks.
4) Automatic updating of navigation links

I've thought about using a plain HTML based site before, but as soon as the site grows it becomes a pain to keep updated. Where possible it's best to reduce the time spent maintaining things so it can be spent on creating good content

[DWR]

Thank you all very much.

As it stands, my reasoning for using HTML is:

• As mentioned, the degree of control over layout and organization. I've got a uniform layout that I use over all of my websites, and have an organizational system that I think works pretty well.
• Not having my content in a database that can become corrupted, or is not easily moved from one type of site to another should I no longer enjoy working with a particular setup.
• Able to handle load spikes much better than a database driven site. I have shared hosting and I fear waking up one day with my sites down due to a digg or something similar.
• Able to project a more unique appearance and feel in a web that has become FILLED with Wordpresss blogs!

I am still weighing options though, and really appreciate all of your input!

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by DWR

As mentioned, the degree of control over layout and organization. I've got a uniform layout that I use over all of my websites, and have an organizational system that I think works pretty well.

Blogs are very adapt at keeping a uniform layout, because they rely on fixed templates that are wrapped around your content - old and new.

Not having my content in a database that can become corrupted, or is not easily moved from one type of site to another should I no longer enjoy working with a particular setup.

There is no guarantee that the server that hosts your static HTML page doesn't suffer from the same kind of corruption. That's what backup systems are for! Most blog systems can export all their content in one way or another (or, at the very least, all of your posts in an RSS feed).

Whether you go with a blog or static html, you always need a good backup strategy.

Able to handle load spikes much better than a database driven site. I have shared hosting and I fear waking up one day with my sites down due to a digg or something similar.

Again, static html sites aren't immune to this - it all depends on how well your hosts handles load spikes.

Able to project a more unique appearance and feel in a web that has become FILLED with Wordpresss blogs!

WordPress does not dictate the look and feel of your site. You can customize every last nook and cranny of it (except for, maybe, the WordPress admin backend).

One thing WordPress can do - and your static html can't - is drastically change the look and feel of your entire site at the flick of a switch. Just drop in another theme and presto! (creating the theme is, of course, a little more involved than that). It's one of the reasons why I went with WordPress. I can figure out the organization of the site first, using an off the shelve theme, and then once everything is in place switch to my own unique theme.

[1000feet]

Originally Posted by DWR

Thank you all very much.

As it stands, my reasoning for using HTML is:

• As mentioned, the degree of control over layout and organization. I've got a uniform layout that I use over all of my websites, and have an organizational system that I think works pretty well.
• Not having my content in a database that can become corrupted, or is not easily moved from one type of site to another should I no longer enjoy working with a particular setup.
• Able to handle load spikes much better than a database driven site. I have shared hosting and I fear waking up one day with my sites down due to a digg or something similar.
• Able to project a more unique appearance and feel in a web that has become FILLED with Wordpresss blogs!

I am still weighing options though, and really appreciate all of your input!

DWR - those are all good things to think about but they don't usually weigh in favor of HTML. A database can be corrupted, but it can be backed up or restored with a couple of clicks on most web hosts.

With many hosts the database software and the web server software (which sends the regular HTML) are in fact on the same server. So if there's no resources left none of them has a magic backdoor key that lets them work faster.

In the end you have to ask yourself if it's really worth doing 10x the work on an ongoing basis for a tiny increase in control. There's blog plugins for everything you can imagine so you aren't limited to just having ordinary posts on your site. Is it worth doing this at the expense of time you could spend improving your content?