Dynamic vs. Static

[Roundabout]

I maintain several web sites and have ideas for many more that I'd like to create. I often go back and forth between the pros and cons of creating a dynamic versus static site and would like opinions from others.

Static sites seem to require more work to maintain than dynamic sites but allow me to have complete control of the site. A dynamic site allows visitors to contribute by posting comments and such but comment spammers are also prevalent, which takes time to moderate.

I don't want to bore you with the details of the conundrum that I face but would like opinions about which is better to create: dynamic or static.

[Tubby]

I prefer static. I would not attempt to argue that it is better. I think I just like it and feel more comfortable with static paged that I can play with.

It is time consuming, But time spent on the little things on web pages, I think is time well spent.

[incrediblehelp]

I don't think their is an answer here. Both have their benefits and it is really up to you on what your more comfortable working with.

[jrdorkin]

You can do both. Try creating a static page and use tools like CaRP to integrate RSS feeds. It works great. I use it to post content from my forums in my static pages. Either way you go, there is no correct answer.

[bj]

I can grow my site much quicker with a dynamic site, and content is king. Then there are the linkbuilding tools a dynamic site gives you, the extensions and add ons, etc. Just look at what wordpress, or modx, or drupal, or joomla allow you to do pretty easily, and compare that to what it would take to build in all that functionality on a static site.

I spend all my time coding other peoples' sites, the last thing I want to do is nitpick code with my own every single time I wanna post content. With a dynamic site, I write the article, copy/paste it into admin and hit a button. Done. And when I hit that button all the update services are creating links to me and notifying people there's fresh content. How long would it take me to do that manually?

Dynamic. Definitely.

[gembiz]

Scale is important. If you are only going to have a few pages then you can choose either, but for more than a few dozen then static becomes, IMHO, painful. For more than 100 pages the advantages of dynamic sites become obvious.

For thousands.... well ... you've no choice at that point!

[imvain2]

I believe the term "dynamic" gets a bad rep, because of many reasons.

What we do for our clients, is build the website where they can maintain the text on each of the pages from an admin area. So if they want to update the About us page, they simply login, type in their text and hit save. This information is saved into the DB and on the visitor's side of the website, the new content is pulled directly from the database. No querystring, no muss, no fuss.

[pdstein]

I say dynamic all the way. The advantages of dynamic website systems are so dramatic that my company stopped making static-page sites an option a couple years ago and now we exclusively develop content management system (CMS) based sites.

We also wrote a blog article about the advantages of a CMS-based site about a year ago:

Nine reasons your church website should be a CMS

The article was written specifically about church sites because that's a large part of what we do, but he principles are applicable to most types of sites.

[MarcThai]

Originally Posted by Roundabout

I maintain several web sites and have ideas for many more that I'd like to create. I often go back and forth between the pros and cons of creating a dynamic versus static site and would like opinions from others.

Static sites seem to require more work to maintain than dynamic sites but allow me to have complete control of the site. A dynamic site allows visitors to contribute by posting comments and such but comment spammers are also prevalent, which takes time to moderate.

I don't want to bore you with the details of the conundrum that I face but would like opinions about which is better to create: dynamic or static.

Before I try and answer your question, we need to clarify terms here. A dynamic site can be many things, and if it is designed well it can save you an awful lot of time.

You have defined a dynamic site as one that allows visitors to upload comments, so I assume you are talking about a public discussion forum type of site. Forum software like PHPBB will allow you to moderate comments and disapprove/delete them after posting. You have to log in and manage the comments manually.

There are, however, other types of dynamic sites. The most common type is a website with a Content Management System (CMS) backend linked to a database. Using the CMS, you can copy/paste text into an editing box and format it using an MS Word-type tool bar. You can also upload pictures and create links inside the content. If you need to control the layout, it's easy to insert a Table and place your content precisely where you want it.

There is no definitive answer to your question. Design your sites according to your, or your clients, needs. Static sites are good if you only have a small amount of content that does not need to change often.

CMS sites are great for managing larger sites, or sites that need to grow as the business grows.

PM me if you would like to discuss this in detail, and I can show you examples and explain how CMS sites work.

[Kristos]

For us having it both ways is best.
we use .htm/.html extensions so our sites all appear static, but use the X-type modifier in the .htaccess file to cause htm to be parsed as php.
the .htaccess file in the root of an apache server domain is normally invisible but can be seen easily if you set the filters in your ftp client, just google it and you'll find out how.
we just place the following inside that file:

<Files *.htm>
ForceType application/x-httpd-php
</Files>
<Files *.html>
ForceType application/x-httpd-php
</Files>

for our windows servers, we still name everything .asp even if it is static.

these things will give you the ability to post your site as static, leaving the option to create dynamic pages later, perhaps when you are ready -
WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE YOUR FILE NAMES ON PAGES YOU HAVE WORKED HARD TO PROMOTE.

always back up the .htaccess before operating on it!
since apache checks it before doing anything, any error at all will stop the server and a backup saves the day as you learn.

cheers!

[garris]

If you're looking from a point of view of a web designer, sure, it's a lot easier and faster to create dynamic sites. And the tools have become more sophisticated all the time to make it more user-friendly and attractive to search engines.
But from a retailer's point of view, I think you guys are missing an important element, and that is the organic "feel" of the site.
The reason some retail stores do well and other do not is the "feel" of the store when you walk in. It's an art, not a science. Dynamic sites have a tendancy to have a clinical feel to them, almost manufactured (which they are), whereas static sites are more likely to exude a more living feel to them, even while retaining the basic "look and feel" of the rest of the site.
It's the little things that make a difference that are hard to produce with a dynamic formula.

As for large sites, some of my sites have over 300 pages -- all static. Yeah, it took a while, but once done, it was worth it from the customer's point of view.

[bj]

Dynamic sites have a tendancy to have a clinical feel to them, almost manufactured (which they are), whereas static sites are more likely to exude a more living feel to them, even while retaining the basic "look and feel" of the rest of the site.

This is just plain wrong. Though it's vaguely possible you just haven't seen good design done for dynamic sites, I'm more inclined to believe that there are great sites you've seen (and recognized as such) that you had no clue were being generated dynamically, since it's possible to have totally normal looking URLs on a dynamic site these days.

Though there are a (very) few design limitations with dynamic sites, there are JUST AS MANY LIMITATIONS with static sites, they're just of a different nature. The biggest being the time factor. I can create a webpage in the five minutes it takes me to write the copy, paste it in, and hit the button. I add content to my site at a minimum of three times a week, and usually much more often. And other people add content to my site all the time. Do other people, complete strangers from all over the world, add content to your static site? Can they?

The new web is all about interaction and communication. Though you can possibly add some interactive tools to a static site, they won't be as well integrated, nor will they function as smoothly, and they certainly won't be as varied as what can be offered in a dynamic site. So if you're looking for an "organic feel" from a website -- get a conversation started with the rest of the world and build an interactive dynamic site.

[craigmn3]

Roundabout I think you should tell us what your ultimate goal is

To ask which is better , a Hammer or a Saw and not tell us what it is for. If you don't all you will get are esoterical postulates that extoll the virtue of one or the other.

But what are you trying to....

If you are trying to take advantage of viral or popular opinion, then you are going to want a "dynamic sight" These tend to be very popular but accomplish only what the contributors want to accomplish. They do provide excellent platforms for advertising revenue.

Our own Web Pro World is an example of this kind of system gone good.

But if you are trying to get involved with E-commerce or promotion of your ideas, there is no where near the control you need in dynamic.

(I like the hybrid Idea if you can pull it off)

So what ? Are you pounding nails or cutting planks?

[Roundabout]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I publish travel books for a living. The sites I create are travel-related and are basically an effort to increase awareness of the titles I publish. That and earn some revenue through GoogleAds and affiliate programs.

I've been experimenting with various CMS packages such as Geeklog, Drupal, Joomla, Mambo, etc. I've used Geeklog for one of my non-business sites and am pleased with it. I've been experimenting with Drupal for an upcoming business-related site and am impressed with it so far. I think I also need to take another serious look at Mambo and Joomla.

The stumbling block I usually run in to is customizing the site's look. I know only basic CSS (customizing a table-less site such as what Drupal uses is intimidating) and just about nothing of PHP and MySQL.

I suppose I was looking for opinions that would convince me it's time to delve into developing CMS sites and learning CSS, PHP, etc.

[pdstein]

Originally Posted by Roundabout

I've been experimenting with various CMS packages... The stumbling block I usually run in to is customizing the site's look. I know only basic CSS (customizing a table-less site such as what Drupal uses is intimidating) and just about nothing of PHP and MySQL.

So, why not use a CMS and pay someone to develop a custom template so it has the look you want? I'm of the philosophy that you do what you do best and pay someone to do what they do best.

[Refiner]

Having a CMS to control your site's content, and a working knowledge of php/mysql is not a prerequisite to using a CMS. I know many people who use a CMS for their websites and don't know the first thing about how to write code for php/mysql. Granted it is very convenient to know the code and eventually learn it if you are interested, but do not let the code stop you from using a CMS for your website.

When I got into php/mysql I didn't know which pieces I would ever need to redo, but I did know related languages well enough to stumble my way through in the beginning. That was nearly 2 years ago and now I have several php/mysql sites up and running.

Nowadays, I dread when I need to go back and update my old static html site. It just isn't as fun to play with anymore, but I do work on it. Someday I will put it all into a php-driven site and the content will be much faster to update and maintain.

[webwise]

I agree with pdstein, why not pay someone to do something they are good at and stick with what you know? There are plenty of web designers who specialise in building CMS based websites at very affordable rates.

Having said that, there are a lot of great looking templates that work very well with Joomla (a great CMS by the way)and with a little bit of playing around, they are pretty easy to implement.

Check out these sites for some cool templates (Joomla):

http://www.joomlajet.com
http://www.joomlashack.com
http://www.joomladesigns.co.uk/News/...e-gallery.html


Finally, if you need a little more advice on this matter, check out the following links, they might shed some light on your dilemma (forgive the shameless plug):

http://www.webwiseworkshops.com/plan...e_managed.html
http://www.webwiseworkshops.com/plan...templates.html
http://www.webwiseworkshops.com/plan...fessional.html

Hope this helps
WebWiseG

[ronchalice]

Another great site for templates is joomla24.com a lot stuff to use as starting points.

I still have a lot of static stuff, because sometimes static just works! It's good information that doesn't change often, just gets added to.