Survey Results: What is the Best CMS for Maintaining a Static Website?

In last month’s poll, I asked the question “What CMS is best for maintaining a static website?” Let’s take a look at the responses and what they mean (and why I disagree with the majority here).

  1. WordPress – 76%
  2. Custom CMS – 18%
  3. Drupal – 8%
  4. FrogCMS – 0%

It turns out the vast majority of readers feel that WordPress is best suited for maintaining a static website. As a web developer with many clients that frequently demand static websites, I actually have to disagree with this notion. WordPress may be the best CMS for many sites, however it is packed with features and options that you probably don’t need on a simple, static website. It’s simply overkill for simple sites and contains features which may end up confusing your client rather than helping them maintain their site.

Always Apply KISS

If you’re one of the few who doesn’t know what KISS is, it is an acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid, and a reminder that often the simplest idea/product is best. In terms of CMS features, if your client can live without it, leave it out. A static website entails a site that isn’t database intensive and will require occasional editing/updating, however for the most part will remain static. In terms of CMS, it should have:

  • Content Editing via Authentication
  • Possibly uploading images and rich media
  • Minimal (if any) DB interaction

WordPress can do all of the above and a lot more, which is the main problem. The need for plugins to create static/cached content is an added headache you don’t want your clients to have to deal with.

My Pick: Custom CMS

Like I said, I prefer keeping features to the absolute minimum to avoid overwhelming the client and making the entire updating process effortless from their site. Often you’ll get clients who are not tech-savvy and will require an intense level of coaching, using a more feature-rich CMS in those circumstances will only result in endless support requests and late night phone calls.

For the minimal features listed above, it’s often easier to just code a simple, custom CMS in PHP and throw it on a shared server. To avoid DB interactions, use caching to generate static files and avoid DB calls altogether for the majority of visitors. Throw in a customized login screen for your client with their company logo and they’ll be even more pleased. It may require more work than implementing WordPress at first, however you can always reuse your code after that initial development. Bonus points if you manage to use SQLite so if your client decides to ever change hosts or upgrade servers, they just have to copy over the 1-folder all of their site files are stored in (no DB migration headaches).

The Other Options


Two of the other options were Drupal and FrogCMS. Drupal is definitely overkill for any simple, static website. FrogCMS, on the other hand, is probably a little more complex than a custom CMS you code but is still very bare-bones. If you haven’t heard of it, be sure to check out their site and the administration demo. It may even be worthwhile to start with FrogCMS and strip down all the excess features you don’t need to get to your ideal custom CMS.

Your Thoughts and New Poll


If you’re one of the people who picked WordPress, what are your thoughts on what I’ve said so far? Do you agree or disagree with the notion that WordPress is probably overkill for many static websites? Voice your thoughts in the comments!

Also, take a look at this month’s poll in the right hand column: What is the lowest version of Internet Explorer your websites support?

Enjoyed the post?

Then you should follow me on Twitter or subscribe to the RSS feed.

  • Remy

    How many answers did you have for this poll results?

    -Thanks

    • http://devgrow.com/ Monji

      We had about 60 responses for this past survey. Not very high but I guess it’s decent for the very first poll.

  • http://brettjankord.com Brett

    The company I work for uses a custom CMS solution. We have some files we have put together over working on different projects and use it as our base CMS. I believe it works great for informational websites that are not too complex. We usually get a lot of complements from clients on how easy our CMS is to use compared to others the clients may have used before. I personally just like the freedom of a custom CMS.

  • http://www.kingjason.co.uk Jason King

    I’m not sure that this question makes sense because isn’t a “static” website one that doesn’t use a CMS?

    To edit static pages’ HTML you’d use a web/text editor or you’d use a tool like Adobe Contribute. I like using Contribute for static sites, although it can sometimes be buggy.

    I find that clients get the hang of WordPress quickly and it’s a great tool for editing a simple website. It’s just as good for very small as well as large sites, although Drupal should be considered if you require greater flexibility/more complex features.

    A custom CMS is, in my opinion, only worthwhile on a large website with unique requirements. I’ve seen many small to medium sized websites get stuck with outdated, unsupported custom-built CMS to think it’s a good idea. I suspect that many companies build them so their customers can’t go elsewhere for support, rather than using something open source that would give their customers more options!

    • http://devgrow.com/ Monjurul Dolon

      In my opinion, a static website just implies that the content on the site is static and does not contain any significant dynamic elements, like activity feeds, new products, comments, etc. You can use a dynamic CMS like WordPress (backend) to generate and manage a static website (frontend).

  • Ash

    The time you spend building a custom solution you could spend a fraction of that simply using a few CSS rules to hid the bits of the admin interface you don’t want your clients to see. Then, later when they want more (as they often do) you can simply unhide them and voila, instant new features for your clients enjoyment.

    WordPress is only as complex as you want it to be and when it comes to the user interface is widely accepted to be one of the easiest to learn.

  • http://fallion.net/ Simon

    The issue I have with WordPress is that a lot of things are out of your control and instead of building the CMS around the needs/wants of the website you build the website around the needs of WordPress. The way WordPress handles static pages is just not optimal for me.

    Yes, it’s easy for users to learn, but it’s also a bit of overkill in terms of both possibilities and performance. I find that for most of the people I work with it’s much easier to set up a tiny CMS solution that I can easily update over multiple website (via a plugin solution) and that prevents the system doing something I do not want. Which wordpress has done many a time for me.

  • http://www.gonine.net George

    Try Joomla

  • Pingback: Good Old Static HTML Sites Aren’t Dead Yet. Should They Be?

  • Pingback: Good Old Static HTML Sites Aren’t Dead Yet. Should They Be? « JoinOG

  • Pingback: RedHost | Good Old Static HTML Sites Aren’t Dead Yet. Should They Be?

  • Pingback: Wordpress Leaks » Good Old Static HTML Sites Aren’t Dead Yet. Should They Be?

  • Carla Hawksworth

    I would have to agree… try Joomla.

  • Guest

    There is a new breed of ‘ultra-light’ CMSes also – Perch and CouchCMS, for example.
    These have none of the baggages the heavy-weights bring into a simple project while still giving the benefits of a proper Content Management System. 

  • Pingback: » Eski Güzel Statik HTML Siteleri Henüz Ölmedi! Tasarım, Kodlama, Sosyal Medya – Cetvel.co – En Kaliteli Türkçe İçerik – Gerçekten

  • http://benbarber.co.uk/ Ben Barber

    Something like Cushy CMS I would say is ideal! All it requires is that you simply add a class to any areas you want editable in your html. Job done!

  • http://www.selfassemblysites.com/ Alastair McDermott

    One option I’ve seen is build a site locally in (insert CMS here), then grab a flat copy of it (via HTTrack, etc) and upload the flat version. Any time you need a change, login locally, make the change, grab a new version of the flat site and re-up.

    Interesting approach, great for performance and security IF all the hassle is acceptable.

    For me, the CMS benefits outweigh the negatives and I rarely build static sites in anything but WordPress.