Written on February 29th, 2008 at 07:02 am by Darren Rowse
Have Blogs Killed Conventional Websites?
This post looking at conventional websites vs blogs is by Suzanne Falter-Barns from Get Known Now.
Have Blogs Killed Conventional Websites?
It’s a question that’s been bugging me profoundly since I got into blogging over a year ago. Blogs are cheap, easy, efficient, wildly easy to find on the Net, super marketing-friendly, and just plain fun. They work rings around websites.
So are conventional websites no longer necessary? To find out, I interviewed Andy Wibbels, the original blogging evangelist and author of the excellent book, Blogwild!. Here’s the short version of what I learned.
- Websites are clunky and expensive; blogs are lean and cheap.
- You have to wait for someone to make changes to your website; your blog can be changed easily by you.
- You have to wait for someone else to set up your site; your blog can be set up by you in 15 minutes.
- You can update your blog at an airport, while you’re on the run. You have to call your webmaster … and wait … to update your site.
- You can collect email addresses, and download free reports and bonuses off of a website. Same with a blog.
- You can use a shopping cart to collect money for e-commerce of a website. Same with a blog.
- You can set up a press room with all sorts of cool links and forms on a website. Same with a blog.
- It takes three to six months for the big search engines to find you with a website. It takes two or three days with a blog.
- You can easily track stats of who has visited your regular website. Same with a blog.
- The media are more likely to find you on a blog.
- You can learn more about your audience from a blog.
- You market automatically with a blog. But not with a conventional website.
- You can make a lot more friends with a blog.
The list appears to go on and on, but you get the picture. Blogs are, quite simply, the next wave. So if you’re thinking about setting up a site, stop in your tracks and turn towards blogs instead!
Note from Darren: what would you add to the above list of comparisons between blogs and conventional websites?
124 Responses to “Have Blogs Killed Conventional Websites?” - Add Yours
Tommy Day
February 29th, 2008 7:46 am
I understand what he was meaning by this, but it’s a little misleading. Sure, if you want a default theme with no customization you can set your blog up in minutes, but if you still want a custom website (that’s just built as a blog) you should still seek a professional.
Corey Potter
February 29th, 2008 7:49 am
I totally agree with this list!
I have been designing websites for the past few years, and only recently discovered the power of Wordpress as a CMS. So far, there have been very few things I haven’t been able to do with a blog.
I would also add (especially for those using Wordpress): There is a plugin that has already been developed to do almost anything you can think of!
I think blogs will overtake websites more and more… but I also expect people’s idea of what a blog is to change. Just because your website is a blog doesn’t mean it has to be updated frequently, or that you are trying to make money by getting thousands of viewers to click your ads.
I think this is currently hard for some people to see past when I say, “Why don’t we make your site a blog?”
DJ at Fermentarium
February 29th, 2008 7:51 am
I’m not sure I agree.
#1 – blogs are websites. Distinguishing between the two does not make sense. I think people are more forgiving of blog layouts, but they are just as clunky.
#2 – Depends on ownership, not the website.
#3 – huh? I guess if blogs are only canned solutions.
#4 – Implementation specific. Depends on the implementation of your blog/site.
I can continue with each point like this. The distinction between the two is imaginary. Blogs are websites.
Scott Marlowe
February 29th, 2008 7:54 am
What about the case where the blog and the web site are one in the same? You’ve got the best of both worlds that way, seems to me.
M
February 29th, 2008 7:57 am
I bet lots of people and webmasters have thought about this. And I’ve been thinking about it since I started my blog around Christmas last year.
At first it seemed likely; and blogs had all the reasons to be able to overtake websites, which prompted me to research an article on this. Having done some research, I have found that blogs for smaller companies will be great, but not for corporate giants. The giants will not gain any substantial benefit from blogging (one or two have, but we’re looking at the whole lot in general) and usually CEOs of huge companies wont do it.
However, the rule changes for small companies, and larger companies with a “modern businessmodel”. Think creative industries, where a human persona fits the brands and is welcomed by consumers.
If they were accountants or lawyers, traditional websites would work better.
The exception to this is the content of the blog. If the aforementioned accountants or lawyers wanted to have blogs, they would have to be very niche and not at all liberal in their views.
That’s my $0.02
Robert
February 29th, 2008 8:01 am
I know a couple of people who only use blogging as a website. They say that its easier to keep updated (of course!) it simple, easy to change (content and appearance).
In some cases I think blogs HAVE taken over website’s. If I were to have a website, I would redirect allot of traffic to a blog where things could be discussed.
Websites are great, but only if they use Web 2.0. Otherwise only for some information.
you’ve got some great thoughts there Darren.
Thanx.
Marty Weil
February 29th, 2008 8:01 am
Yes, I agree. In fact, a few weeks ago, a client contacted me about re-writing/optimizing some content on their corporate website. I spent an hour explaining that the conventional website stucture was problematic, and that he’d be much better served with a blog. However, like many of today’s small busines people, he was only aware of the conventional website model. Further, he was at the mercy of service providers eager for him to continue to rely on them to maintain his site. He simply couldn’t comprehend how a blog could be so much better, cheaper, and more search engine friendly.
I’m so glad you articulated these points. As soon as I finish writing this comment, I will email him a link to your post.
Ms. Single Mama
February 29th, 2008 8:02 am
Blogs are definitely the new websites…hoo-rah for writing this today. I’ve been feeling like Chicken Little or something, “blogs, blogs, blogs are coming.” Good to know I’m not really crazy.
Sue
February 29th, 2008 8:08 am
I will take exception to some of the comparisons.
1. Websites are not clunky and expensive…in fact blogs can be way more clunky and a drain on resources. Anyone hosting on shared plans, the plugins often cause the dreaded CPU exceeded or overloaded messages, with consequent suspensions.
2. (and 3.) Learn CSS, HTML (or XHTML) and do it yourself. It’s not hard, and with CSS, updating is fairly easy, and you always have a local copy. It’s not hard to learn, and if you want, you can always start with an excellent free template, just like WordPress.
8. Nope. A few good links and the search engines will find you just as quick. It actually took only a month after my static site went live to start seeing Google traffic. And Yahoo, and MSN Live Search. It’s all about SEO.
10. As the owner of both a static website (or two), I’ve actually been found more by the media on those two sites. The key is great content, promotion and links, no matter if it’s a blog or a static, conventional site.
12. You market yourself automatically, or you should be, no matter what type of site you have.
13. Not necessarily. You can forgo the time wasting social bookmarks and run a forum. Or have other interactivity on your static website. Just because it’s referred to as static, doesn’t mean it has to be.
And to add one more thought why conventional websites will never go away: Trust. Anyone can put up a blog in no time, fill it with adsense and try to get rich quick. A website implies thought, planning and actual work. And that’s recognized by Google. Your page rank, trust and authority are therefore much enhanced. Stability counts, and millions of blogs come and go, but a static site is going to be around.
Jeff - buzzmyblog.com
February 29th, 2008 8:13 am
Blogs have accomplished the single most important thing that every good website developer strives for – the complete and total separation between content and design. It does this through a little thing called RSS. So in a way, I don’t think blogs have replaced websites, they just improved upon them with a better design.
Solo Programmer
February 29th, 2008 8:15 am
I’m not going to argue much with the idea of using blog software to build a content site. You can do pretty much everything you need and the built in tools are beyond compare – things like site navigation, promotion and user subscription are just there.
But remember that a website isn’t necessarily a content site. I’d like to see you build Flickr or YouTube inside a blog.
what is going on, blog
February 29th, 2008 8:22 am
Blog can be made in many styles, and formats, that I believe blogs are better. http://www.whatisgoingonblog.com
Justin Wandro
February 29th, 2008 8:26 am
This article brings up some interesting points, but I believe there is a misconception as to what a blog is and what a website is.
A website is a generic term for any grouping of pages on the internet. Sites like http://www.sacloaves.org (a local to me non-profit organizations website) are a website, but so is problogger.net, or even google.com. They all fall under the generic term of a website.
A blog, or weblog, is simply a tool used to track continually updating information in a sequential order on a website.
So a website can have a blog, or a forum, or a newsfeed, etc…
Perhaps more accurate terminology to use for this article would be between a static informational website and a dynamic interactive website.
Matt
February 29th, 2008 8:29 am
As much as I love blogs, I still have to say this. Every blog is just a CMS with a few distinct characteristics (reverse chronological post display, blogroll, categories, etc). Every feature of a blog can be carried over to a “conventional” website while still being a “conventional” website.
Does anybody remember the earliest open source CMS systems? PHPNuke?
PHPNuke had all of the characteristics of a blog 10 years ago. Now a site powered by PHPNuke is considered “conventional”.
Barbara Rozgonyi, Wired PR Works
February 29th, 2008 8:37 am
Great list Suzanne and Andy!
To promote my How to Blog Workshop, I put together a list of the top 20 reasons to forget updating your site and begin a blog and then honed it down to 10 ways blogs grow business online.
Even though I’m an ardent blog evangelist, I find our clients get stuck on the word “blog” and the concept of updating content more frequently than they’re used to.
When we change the language to online newsroom or web publishing platform or online client service center, we get better results.
We find the biggest reason people prefer websites is so their site can stay static with minimal updates.
Teaching them how a blog can leapfrog their business ahead of their competition is often the nudge it takes to add a blog to their online marketing mix.
Natalie
February 29th, 2008 8:43 am
I agree with Justin. A blog is a website.
There are many non-static websites out there that can be updated as easily and as quickly as a blog, whether you use Mambo or a similar package.
Mark Silver
February 29th, 2008 8:43 am
Whoa! It seems like this post is off and running on a number of assumptions and misunderstandings that can lead someone new astray.
The comparison that they are making seems to be between CMS versus hard-coded websites, not static websites versus blogs. In which case a lot of the points hold true.
But, one of things I’ve been observing with business blogs is that if someone launches a blog, and doesn’t create ANY ’static’ pages, such as an ‘about’ page, or a ’services’ page, or other core pages that give some context and understanding and connection to the visitor, then the blog can become popular, but may not actually convert any visitors to customers.
You can also frustrate the HECK out of visitors, if all they are faced with is a sequentially-posted blog and there are none of these core pages, or ‘flagship content’ as Chris Garrett likes to call it. They may find an interesting post or two, but they won’t be finding the some of the more basic information they need.
For a business on the web, yes, I think it’s great to have a CMS platform like Wordpress to be able to update the site yourself.
And, don’t think you’re going to be successful with just blog posts. You need some of the other core pages. Look at any of the successful business blogs out there, including this one, and you’ll see that it’s not just blog posts, but that there are other foundational pages there.
So, let’s get our terminology straight, and let’s not lead anyone down the garden path of either/or- when you really do need both.
Warren of Zen Problog
February 29th, 2008 8:44 am
Best I would say is it is easier to launch a product or service on a blog because people who read a blog know and trust the author more than a stagnant website.
I’ll personally be making a big announcement about a new service soon on my blog.
http://www.zenproblog.com
Nicola Pedley
February 29th, 2008 8:46 am
Just talking about the kind of sites I like to read (fashion, health, shopping, etc), blogs are definitely better from both the readers and bloggers point of view – daily updates are quick and easy so content is always fresh. Of course, not everyone likes to read about fashion, health and blogging…
Shauna Roberts
February 29th, 2008 9:03 am
I think there is still a role for old-fashioned Websites. As a journalist doing research on possible sources for stories, I find a static Website far more useful than a blog for quickly gleaning the basic facts about someone—resume, phone number, job position, list of publications, detailed description of their books, etc. As a writer who sometimes seeks new clients, I get several assignment inquiries a year from people who find my Website and like my qualifications and record of publications. There’s no room at a blog to list all that information.
Tomaz Mencinger
February 29th, 2008 9:15 am
Static websites are generally keyword focused while blogs are news focused. With the exception of A-list bloggers, static websites thus eat blogs for breakfast as far as earning money is in question.
Lara Kulpa
February 29th, 2008 9:18 am
Honestly?
As a web designer/SEO/marketing consultant – I build every single site I do with WP. I customize and integrate so that the site owner gets a professional, clean, streamlined site with whatever features they need right where they need them on the site.
If they want the blog up front, so be it.
If they want to use pages and make a “traditional” site with a blog feature, so be that too.
I think pretty soon (if not already), you’re definitely going to stop seeing “.htm” or “.html” at the end of URLs though… ;)
Chris Howard
February 29th, 2008 9:29 am
As others have noted, a blog is simply a dynamic website. Dynamic websites are built on databases.
These dynamic websites often have a Content Management System (CMS) driving them. Blog engines are simply lightweight CMSs.
Blog engines, because of their limited feature set, are more approachable by the the user.
And the great thing of course is you can still create websites with most blog engines that are page-based, not post-based, thus meaning you can create a site that for all intents, looks like a traditional static site.
So, in a nutshell, the reality is that it’s the traditional static website that is a dying breed, being replaced by CMS-based sites, which includes blogs.
I do agree with all the points on this list, especially #3. This is the bane of anyone who wants a website. Historically, they’ve always ended up being reliant on the website developer to edit and update the content. If the developer disappeared, the website wouldn’t get updated and become irrelevant.
Imagine if you got a designer to make you a letterhead but they then told you that if you needed a letter typed up, they would have to do it for you! That’s similar to the situation where website owners are reliant on the website developer to update their own content.
It’s no good, as Sue (commenter #5) says to “Learn CSS, and HTML”. A small business owner does not have the time or inclination for learning programming.
CMSs let developers/designers build the websites, but the owners manage the content. As it should be.
Another great guest post, Darren.
Thanks for a great list, Suzanne, which I’m going to show a few people.
Brian Purkiss
February 29th, 2008 9:30 am
I don’t think blogs will ever kill conventional web sites.
Sure, they may dominate a large part of the market, but they won’t ever kill static web sites out right.
Reason?
Conventional web sites are much more customizable.
For example, what would happen if Apple.com was turned into a blog?
Most of the content wouldn’t look even half as nice.
No, blogs won’t ever kill conventional web sites. Blogs may maim them, but not kill them.
DB Ferguson
February 29th, 2008 9:33 am
Another benefit of a blog, especially a Wordpress blog – there are hundreds of free templates that are essentially ready for publication and available, and there are tons of resources for plugins to make the site more user-friendly.
I was able to set up blogs via wordpress.com and blogger.com without ever having to pay a dime. It was a free, easy way to publish. And to find a web service that does that for a conventional page is virtually impossible, design aside.
Make Money Talks
February 29th, 2008 9:35 am
I think problem with traditional sites is in robust CMS and wide technology, in blogging everything is created just for that purpose, php+mysql, what else you need. As mentioned in this nice post, blog is very flexible and easy to start and manage.
Chris Howard
February 29th, 2008 9:36 am
oops, I meant #2 is the bane.
Andy Merrett
February 29th, 2008 9:53 am
I know a lot of other people have said it, but blogs are websites, or at least, a subset of a website.
Blogs are no more special than forums, or shopping carts, or wikis, or directories, any other style or method of implementation.
A lot of the points made don’t apply to anyone who has some technical know-how. And even if you don’t, you can set up “standard” web sites with various online tools, so you can do it yourself. Maybe not as professional as getting a dedicated company to do it, but then, that’s the same with setting up a standard, free blog compared to hosting your own custom blog and doing your own design, coding, and maintenance.
I understand where these points are coming from, but they can’t be used in all circumstances.
Tabitha Grace Smith
February 29th, 2008 10:37 am
I totally agree. A big factor, in my opinion, is the interactivity. People love discussions. People love giving feedback and people are more prone to return to a site that is constantly updating.
Websites that do well have those things, but all of those things are inherent in blogs from the getgo.
Mike King
February 29th, 2008 10:40 am
I totally disagree with this entire article. Blogs ARE websites. Any website with editing features can be managed EXACTLY like a blog. Search engines can index websites the same and as quickly as blogs if it is linked the same way. And the rest of the ideas around marketing, media and friends, what a load of junk. There are hundreds of websites that do the same things as blogs and really blog software came from those website systems. They are not their own thing.
What you are really talking about are traditional websites verses new technology of editable content. Its nothing to do with blogs per say.
Orfej
February 29th, 2008 11:03 am
It is true.Blog is better than website – design, update, and I can see, search engine index is very fast.
Neil Duckett
February 29th, 2008 11:05 am
What really constitutes a blog or website or do they both over lap to some degree? When i look at the home page of problogger.net i see “Recently at the Blog” and “Want more, check out the Blog” …. those references to me give me the impression the front page of problogger.net is actually positioned as a website and the blog is a seperate area, albeit only marginally.
Shannon Lilly
February 29th, 2008 11:06 am
Well imo, the whole idea behind a regular website taking months to be found is just plain ridiculas.
However I love blogs because they are easy to use and I can show clients how to build their own blogs / sites and be successful as well as make money online.
CK
February 29th, 2008 11:25 am
Interesting subject! In my little corner of the web, as a graphic designer hobbyist, blogs are a great addition to our websites. We get to design our pretty graphics, and create pretty pages, making the web a pretty place to visit (in our opinion). Our blogs help us get to know one another. Much like myspace or facebook, but in the real web world.
Mind you, we aren’t probloggers… Our blogs are personal blogs, where we talk about the homemaking, scrapbooking, graphics, grand kids, and our favorite apple pie recipes.
I love blogs and the genius software creator behind the scenes, because my technically challenged friends can log into wordpress.com and within minutes they have their own ‘website’. A website they have complete control over. It’s amazing!
No. Blogs have killed conventional websites… but they have their place on the web.
Martijn
February 29th, 2008 11:27 am
Wordpress as a CMS is definitely an improvement over writing plain web pages ; and the plug in API is actually quite well developed.
I am currently building a website that pulls in hundreds of data pages from a database — and merged it into Wordpress through a plugin ; and display it through a self developed (but still standard) theme.
This way I get all the benefits of Wordpress (editors, RSS feeds, comments, posting, user management, plugins) and at the same time can do whatever I like in presenting the information to my visitors.
Not sure about the search engine updating though. You might hit the occasional gold with a post; but search engines still take months to index your whole site.
Max
February 29th, 2008 11:29 am
Viva la blog!
Freddy Duarte
February 29th, 2008 11:48 am
FAIL!… This article was clearly written by someone not technical, and it’s always interesting to know “their” perspective on technology. However, there are many things JUST PLAIN WRONG with this article, and hopefully the readers of problogger will be smart enough to realize that.
Dear Suzanne Falter-Barns:
A blog is a website. I mean, for crying out loud, take a class about Web Publishing at a Community College and learn HTML/CSS and possibly PHP and that way you won’t have to pay anyone to update your website. HEY GET THE KNOW HOW (GET IT? LOL).
A blog is just a very common type of site, that comes with a nice Content Management System. I have built my own blog and CMS, it’s not rocket science! …And IT WAS FREE! (Well yeah, because I know how to code a little… it’s like magic).
I can go on and on about the advantages and disadvantages of a normal blog site (like blogger.com), but let me just mention one very important one:
– Do you have access to the database that holds your “blogs”? No. Do you have access to any tool that will provide you a backup of your “blogs” No. — What does this mean? It means if for some reason the server that’s holding your data fails, your blog is gone.
Anyhow, if you want to be in the business of selling cars you should know a little about car mechanics. Likewise, if you want to talk/blog about web development, at least do some research first.
Opi
February 29th, 2008 11:51 am
I think this article is very misleading, built on wrong assumptions, or interpretations, of what a blog is and I wouldn’t expect to find such an article in Problogger.
I will agree with the comments left by Tommy Day, Justin Wandro, Matt, Chris Howard, and so on.
It amazes me how people, who supposedly blog, or even work with blogs, still can’t see, or don’t want to admit, that a blog is simply a CMS configured to produce/publish a weblog.
A blog (=weblog=logging on the web) is nothing but a dynamically created website designed to produce certain results. In plain terms:
A blog is not a type of software or tool, but rather a presentation. A blog’s underlying software/tool/call-it-what-you-want, is the CMS that enables it to produce the weblog style output.
CMS’ have been around forever, but because newer, simpler, inexpensive CMS’ made publishing available to the masses, and due to the buzz around the word “blog”, all ignoramuses think that blog means CMS.
Please, let’s up the content quality in here!
jatyap
February 29th, 2008 11:56 am
With regards to blogs being websites – I agree.
As a software engineer who has been in the development process for “conventiona”l websites as well as having my own blog, i’d have to disagree on the point that blogs are killing off traditional websites though.
Most conventional enterprise websites (in recent years… but then again, we’re talking about the present, right?) have an application running on something far more than a blog could provide. Whether it’s a .NET/J2EE application, or some other enterprise level application as well as back-end applications (Web Services, Data mining and report generation, complex process handling engines, enterprise-level security) to provide services to their customers. It’s not only what you see on your web browser that counts.
Sure, you could run a small application using PHP (for Wordpress) or the equivalent (if you’re using some other type of blog). I wonder how many years it’s going to take you to code and develop an entire enterprise level system using these though.
J2EE, Java, the .Net platform, etc, on the other hand, were all designed to provide a far more powerful service than just putting content up on a CMS.
If you’re looking to just display content, and run a few simple applications, a blog would be fine. At the enterprise level, however, things change.
Take these few points into consideration:
1. How would you run Enterprise applications on a blog? It is possible I guess, but the setup and configuration, not to mention the development would be even more difficult than that with a traditional website.
2. Banking, anybody? Web Services? The security on custom built enterprise websites are far higher than personally managed blogs could provide.
3. If your clients want to use a messaging system aside from HTTP or XMLRPC (TibCo, JMS, MQ, Traditional TCP/IP client server communications), how would a blog manage that? You would need to write code or use a plugin that supports those messaging systems. Aside from that, you would need to change the behavior of your blog to handle the new message formats.
These are just a few points to consider and if you study closely what developments other websites have gone through, you will see the difference.
Think. If blogs really were really the next big thing, wouldn’t the giants be one of the first to convert? They certainly have the resources to do so. Microsoft, Google, Oracle all have blogs – but they run their core businesses on what we here call “conventional” websites.
In my opinion, blogs are simply a form of “website in a box”. Sure, they’re configurable and customizable, but far less powerful than the “conventional” websites.
Deb
February 29th, 2008 12:24 pm
My first website, set up in 2001 hasn’t been updated in two years, but it still brings in an average of 5k hits a day. When I started blogging 10 months ago, my first blog was for a totally different niche where a website format wouldn’t have worked. I’m amazed at how the blog’s taken off so quickly. I think websites and blogs both have a place in the WWW, depending on the niche, content and the people they serve.
Chris Howard
February 29th, 2008 12:31 pm
The author may have misunderstood what a blog really is, but that’s great, because that in itself shows that nowadays you don’t have to be some technogeek to have a website, blog or otherwise.
The gist of her article is correct though. And that is that the days are numbered for the static, hardcoded website.
Dynamic sites (the pages are generated on requested rather than being static and pre-coded), built on CMSs, blog engines, enterprise applications etc are the way of the future.
Supporters of static coding can argue all they like, but the key is that dynamic sites separate the code and the content, thus enabling content owner to maintain their own content without having to learn any coding. Or have to use a secondary application (eg Dreamweaver) to create the page and then upload it.
From a developer’s point of view, this would be a god-send, as they can focus on what they do best without having to waste time on content.
Thinkbytes
February 29th, 2008 12:34 pm
It’s true, blogs are much better to manage than a conventional webpage.
Making changes to blogs is also much quicker.
I personally prefer blogs over old school websites.
Peter
February 29th, 2008 1:01 pm
This is a very odd comparison to make. Firstly, a “conventional” website is not defined. Is that a website built in HTML? A static site? Or is it a website like Yahoo!? Or maybe a traditional news site?
And then, obviously based on whatever assumption is being made about what defines a “conventional” website, the list makes some rather spurious claims or even downright false ones like this one:
“It takes three to six months for the big search engines to find you with a website. It takes two or three days with a blog.”
That’s the biggest load of garbage I’ve heard. Sure, a wordpress blog will probably be indexed very quickly, with some extra short-term benefit given for fresh content, but traditional websites built with nothing but HTML can be indexed equally as fast. The quote shows an entire lack of understanding (or perhaps misrepresentation?) of SEO; being indexed fast is not due to the technology you’re using or what “style” of site you have. It’s how your site is linked into the internet that counts.
I’m sure there’s some true nuggets in there, but that ruined the credibility for me.
Sangesh
February 29th, 2008 1:10 pm
Long live blog… ;)
Robert.
February 29th, 2008 1:19 pm
Content Management System, can simplify the making of websites. Full control in ALL PARTS of that, but need more skill than administrate a blog.
Ps: try Joomla!, one of the best CMS, I think :)
Robert.
http://onlinehardware.blogspot.com
Pamela Seiple
February 29th, 2008 1:23 pm
The point about SEO is very intelligent. It takes much longer for a site to appear high on a Google search than it does for a blog.
Welcome to Paradise
February 29th, 2008 1:37 pm
This is true that blog is better than website. But still a blog is a blog and a website is a website. A blog can’t and won’t replace a website. They are good that their own respective places.
Ryan
February 29th, 2008 1:42 pm
It seems that using blog software is just another way of creating a website, not a different technology. But I guess that’s just a matter of semantics.
That said, I did switch one of my project sites from a CMS package to Wordpress for one feature, comments. I wanted my visitors to be able to easily leave comments on almost any of the pages similar to the PHP site. In most cases it was easier for them to leave a comment directly on the page they had a question on rather than emailing me or registering and posting on my support forum.
What blogging software does really well is to make it easier for non techy people to post to the web. It’s relatively easy to install blog software to a server, and even easier to use a hosted package. Once it’s there publishing whatever you want online is really simple even if you’ve never done anything web related.
Rob
February 29th, 2008 1:48 pm
I have taken to building websites with a wordpress blog on the homepage with any number of static pages “behind the blog in the same url. The static pages can be custom designed and optimised for keywords and whatever I want to be permanent. The frontpage has constantly updated content and thus is more appealing for regular visitors. If you want to take advantage of a range of web 2.0 actions a blog is far superior IMO, but fails to do all that a website can do.
Bent
February 29th, 2008 2:37 pm
That is very true..not only blog friendly search engine but more than that..now I understand why I falling love into wordpress..thanks to wordpress people..make blogging easier than before :)
Ben
February 29th, 2008 2:50 pm
I’ve always described a blog as a grouping of static websites. Each post stands as it’s own website, but under a common heading. So, if you have 400 posts on your blog, you basically have 400 websites. This is great for driving traffic, since you have 400 times the chance of being indexed by search engines.
I do think the days of customized static websites is beginning to decline. Too many wyswyg programs out there and most templates can be easily changed by the average person.
One last thing. I glad most businesses have not found out the great potential that blogs have for marketing their products. Just imagine how much competition there would be for top search engines results if Sprawl-mart decided to blog on all of its’ items. Maybe we bloggers should keep that secret to ourselves.
GooMoo
February 29th, 2008 3:01 pm
I dont think so the blog can take over conventional websites. The bloggers can the get as much information as conventional have. The resources of personal blog is sort of limited. But the advantage of bolg is that they can concentrate one or a few filed. The reader can get the latest information at the time.
Andrew
February 29th, 2008 3:06 pm
I’m sorry, but this post is overly simplistic and complete bunk. Blogs are fantastic and a great tool for online communication, but you can’t make sweeping generalizations like this. Based on this there seems to very little difference between a blog and a website.
I don’t know who runs Suzanne’s sites or how, but I can update my sites from anywhere just as quickly and easily as I can my blog. I looked at the writer’s site and I’d really question paying for advice from someone who appears to have such a poor grasp of blogs/web sites.
I realize this is a guest post, but honestly I have come to expect better from ProBlogger. This is bad advice from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
zichi
February 29th, 2008 3:12 pm
I disagree this this post, sorry. I’m someone who has made his own art web site for ten years, and my blog for about three years. There are things I can do with a web site that I can’t do with a blog, there are things I can do with a blog I can’t do with a web site. Both are very strong and all major companies run web sites usually supplemented with one or more blogs. All the top sites run web sites, like the BBC News. It does not take me such longer to update my web site than it does for my blog. Everything is hand coded on a simple text editor, which keeps my mind alert for html. That understanding of html help to understand blogs especially when things go wrong. My conclusion is, that web sites are here for the very near future and most web designers have plenty of work. Your argument is one sided.
fc
February 29th, 2008 3:59 pm
blogs are content driven..
web 2.0 is content driven
blogs are web 2.0
the point is that, blogs are much more dynamic in their nature than conventional websites and dynamism defines the web..
Leo Dimilo
February 29th, 2008 6:21 pm
Websites will always have their place on the internet. Since the majority of us who come to this site are in fact bloggers, it would be easy to surmise that conventional websites are dead.
However, while blogs are great if you are constantly updating, what are the benefits of having a website instead?
1. Static (and dateless) content- You can build a site with a ton of pages and just let it go. Two years down the road, someone finding your site won’t realize that it hasn’t been updated for two years. Now I know that you can change some of the php code to make it so there is no date but then again, that would require work and possible outsourcing if you use the same argument that if you own a website, you will need to find someone to update it, right?
2. With websites, you can easily build ecommerce sites- Ever try to build an eCommerce site around a blog? I have…and that requires (once again) some knowledge of php OR outsourcing the work.
3. With websites, you aren’t looking for readers…you are looking for buyers (in most cases)- whether adsense or affiliate links or whatever, it doesn’t matter. And that is primarily the big difference between the two.
So what is the BIG advantage that blogs have over websites? .xml files for RSS feeds (which makes blogs get indexed more quickly..or so they say) and site maps…both of which you could add to a website and make it equally as powerful.
Personally, I believe that by having both(assuming that the website owner wants to deal with the headache of updating constantly) would be the best bet.
As far as blogs being “web 2.0″..I can agree that is right. But to say that static websites are a thing of the past and should be shelved is absolutely insane.
Both have their place and will have their place in the future…..
Matt @ Kurb
February 29th, 2008 6:27 pm
I promote musicians online and this is a cool post to pass on for them about what exactly the differences between blogs and websites and their uses are. cheers.
bugsy
February 29th, 2008 7:18 pm
Different websites = different functions. Not everything is going to have the same purpose. Blogs can only go so far, and I can only read so many opinions before my head is about to explode.
Monevator
February 29th, 2008 7:52 pm
Problogger folks — I think the link to Suzanne’s website in the intro is broken?
Voice Of Dingchao
February 29th, 2008 7:52 pm
I believe blogs will kill traditional websites in the end, because blogs are alive but traditional websites are not very alive. This is why common readers like blogs other than websites.
So I have begun to build my own blog since last year, I hope I can make it be successful.
MJ Ray
February 29th, 2008 8:36 pm
I think I’ve seen this post before, but the last time I saw it, it said “if the only tool I know how to use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
I like blogs, I think thy’re flexible, about half of the sites I’m putting up at the moment are blogs, I develop blogs, I support blogs, but they are never going to be all things to all people. Sometimes another CMS or web app model is a better idea. Sometimes a static advert site with forum or contact form is actually the right answer.
LintCollector
February 29th, 2008 8:37 pm
Sorry but I disagree.
“Websites are clunky and expensive; blogs are lean and cheap.”:
- Clunky? When I added a blog to my website I had to modify the WP theme to integrate it with my site. The blog code and CSS was considerably more complex and clunky than that of my website, which was lean and simple in comparison.
- Expensive? If you create your own pages, a hosted website with its own domain name costs the same as an equivalent hosted blog with its own domain name.
Points 2-4 assume reliance on a webmaster, but with a little knowledge you can update your own conventional website just as quickly as a blog. Most hosting packages have web interfaces so you can do updates from airports, or anywhere.
“It takes three to six months for the big search engines to find you with a website.”:
- not if you submit a site map to Google. When I add new static pages they are usually indexed within a couple of days.
“The media are more likely to find you on a blog.”:
- Numerous radio and TV stations and newspapers have found me … all through my website, none through the blog.
“You can learn more about your audience from a blog.”:
- Blog comments are indeed informative. So are comments in forums, which were a dynamic feature of “static” websites long before blogs became trendy.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but I see blogs and conventional websites merely as different methods of presenting content. In one, the content sits in a database, and in the other, it sits in numerous text files. Both have their place, and can complement each other.
Troy
February 29th, 2008 10:45 pm
Static websites are for people who like to do a lot of work ahead and be done with it. You have to pre-plan a good static site, but then the job is much easier once it’s online. Blogs, by contrast, are for people who have trouble finishing things (like me) because their content is aggregated slowly through repeated updates.
Blogs are also easier to network for the social among us (although obviously I’m excluding forums for this comparison). In the static pages world, you rarely develop friendships that lead to more than one link, because the site is there and done with, and there are no new posts to link to.
BlogAngelTeam (Joanna)
February 29th, 2008 10:59 pm
This is a fascinating discussion and thanks to Suzanne for kicking it off.
It struck me that a lot of the comments here identify the potential downsides of relying on a blog as your sole web presence – with lots of practical suggestions about ways to get round them.
(And vice versa)
Thanks everyone
Joanna
Satollo
March 1st, 2008 12:06 am
What’s a “site”? Site is a too much general term to be used when comparing traditional sites and blogs. If a site is a set of static html pages, a blog is an improvement over a site, making the pages “dynamic” with a distinct concept of page and post. The posts are the “news” of a classical site.
But a blog is only a different (even if great) view of a part of a site. A site can have a forum, which is a step forward in respect of a blog (posts are created by the users not only by the blog owner).
A site can have an ecommerce, which is completely different and not comparable with traditional pages, blogs or forums.
A site can be a set of tools for its users, not related to ecommerce, blog, forum, galleries and so on.
Still, I think many companies would run a blog instead of start with complex CMS. A blog helps you to focus in content-relationships and not in services. Services need competence by the site owner and if they aren’t the core business of the company they will surely fail.
David
March 1st, 2008 1:15 am
Over the past few months I have found that almost every website I have setup for clients are using WordPress. I find that it is really easy for the customers to update and once I have set it up then the client is on their own. Blogs and websites are merging!
extreme webmaster
March 1st, 2008 1:16 am
…and blogs are definitely easier to promote and have people link to you. I got more traffic for one of my blogs in a few days, just by writing a good post, than having for a website of mine in months.
Miracle
March 1st, 2008 1:21 am
This is going to sound repetitive but I had to chime in…
I understand that this writer is referring too updating “static” web sites where the pages are created individually, but she does fail to understand that very few websites are created this way anymore. Blogging platforms such as wordpress, blogger, typepad and such are merely CMS (discussed above). They are just created in the fashion to get information out as quickly as possible..
There is no denying that these systems are the easiest to publish quick information, they do have their drawbacks.
I also wouldn’t recommend them to small business owners or most individuals.
Their menus are hard to edit (if you are not a techie).
Its easy to add junk to the sidebars, but also adds more and more clutter to where the sidebars are longer than the content.
You might be able to see new content quickly, but thats not vital for most people. Most people want to keep their important information seen first and then the new stuff afterwards.
Joomla and Drupal are much better at this than traditional blog platforms.
In addition, these other CMS systems can be used to add blogs in themselves without ruining the structure of the entire site.
The final problem with blogs is that they neglect interaction for information. Yes, you can have comments, but thats where the interactions end. Most of the time it is about one person spewing information and the rest reading.
You can add additional forums and profile systems to the site, but these aren’t naturally compatible with the Blog CMS. You have to be a techie to know how to add this stuff.
Other forms of CMS are much more capable of adding these features with one click installations.
Truthfully, blogs are only beneficial for sites that want to update information quickly. News and opinion related sites. Nothing more. As a techie, I wouldn’t recommend a blog platform to a Small Business Owner and therefore don’t see blogs taking over the CMS world.
Finally, check out my blog: http://www.altnoise.net :)
—- I would like to add that Blog platforms might be good for ranking high on SEO’s, but they are limiting in their potential for Small Business Owners. Its nearly impossible for someone to get to your “buy me” pages from most blog pages.
Theres my rant and I am right
xlt
March 1st, 2008 1:36 am
it’s misleading. the only difference between “oldschool website” and “blog” is how you organise information. actually “old websites” can be more structurised (topics, subtopics etc.) than blog. and both can contain topics and tags for usability.
actually sites can contain both old style pages and blogs. moreover – with blog engines like wordpress you can build websites and website tools – blogs.
Brad
March 1st, 2008 2:45 am
“You have to wait for someone else to set up your site; your blog can be set up by you in 15 minutes.”
Fifteen minutes to set up a blog?
Anyone who operates their blog by that belief is destined to fail. In order to attract large amounts of traffic, you’ve got to constantly be working to improve the performance and content of the blog. Fifteen minutes of blog preparation will leave you with a half-ass end result.
Other than that one notion, nice list!
Eric
March 1st, 2008 3:21 am
“#1 – blogs are websites. Distinguishing between the two does not make sense.”
I tend to agree here. I think the article hits on some good points, but it is slightly misleading in that a blog is a website as well.
A lot of the projects that I work with are “websites” that are powered by Wordpress. They function similar to a blog, but they act and look like a company website.
So I think what you meant with this piece is “Dynamic vs. Static” websites, not “Blogs vs. Websites”. And how the software that powers the two differ.
Great post though!
Doug
March 1st, 2008 3:30 am
This distinction is quite flawed, as are many of the points. When a “site” has more than a “blog” on it, I consider it a web site. Problogger was “just a blog” until you added job boards and other functionality. Then it’s more of a web site.
Many of the successful tech “blogs” are really much more than just blogs. When you start forming distinct site sections that are different from the usual blog posts and articles, you’ve gone outside of just a blog. Tagging really gives blogs some flexibility in organization and a fluid structure, but sometimes you need additional metadata for different entries (such as reviews if you want to save the score as a separate field and sort by rating, etc) and then they are not just a blog post any more. Sure you can “blog” reviews, interviews, product info, events, etc. but they may be better organized and found outside of the typical blog structure.
>>You have to wait for someone to make changes to your website; your blog can be changed easily by you. You can update your blog at an airport, while you’re on the run. You have to call your webmaster … and wait … to update your site.
This is idiotic. A Blog is essentially a stripped down CMS. CMSs were around before blogs and powering sites.
>>It takes three to six months for the big search engines to find you with a website. It takes two or three days with a blog.
This is riddled with assumptions and an insult to educated bloggers and web site owners.
This is quite frankly one of the worst articles I’ve seen on ProBlogger. If there was some preface about what a blog is, it might make some sense, but I find it misleading and way off the mark.
A blog is a just certain type of web site embodied by a format and taxonomy. On the back-end a blog is a mini/focuesd CMS. There is NOTHING a blog can do that a web site cannot do by broad definitions of the two — except maybe the scripted setup/install based on the blog being a piece of reusable software, that in reality most web sites are not, yet some may be if they are based on a packaged CMS. However, there is plenty that a more researched and information-specific approach to information architecture of a web site can accomplish that a blog cannot.
Doug
March 1st, 2008 3:34 am
Darren,
Ever thought of a “rate this post” on each article? Would certainly give you another metric to look at. Of course if this article generated record number of comments, it might be good, but if your users really think it is rubbish, you might want to take a look at the possible impact on your site as well. I don’t think you’re only concerned with traffic here.
Nico
March 1st, 2008 4:13 am
The real question I am asking myself is: what are the main differences between a blog and a website? More specific, the differences between a blog CMS like Wordpress and a website CMS like Joomla or Drupal.
I’m not experienced with all of these Content Managament systems… The only CMS I have used is Joomla. When I started my blog I didn’t know about WordPress… so I used Joomla. Later I thought this was a bad choice, but with some tweaking, I got Joomla to look VERY similar to a blog.
Some of the things that I don’t agree with for 100%:
1. Joomla, the website CMS i’m using, is also free. Some of the plugins are commercial and must be paid for. But that’s probably the same with Wordpress.
2. You can make changes to your website just as easy as with WordPress… Just write an article, pick category and/or section and submit… Even layout, modules and menu’s are customizable in a matter of seconds.
3. A blog does have an “out-of-the-box” factor that’s definitely higher than websites — Can’t compete with that. Just sign up at blogger and you can publish within 5 minutes.
This does result in many similar looking blogs everywhere…
4. When you use a static content cms you can access your content anywhere and at any time as well.
8. I’ve been ‘blogging’ with Joomla CMS for about a month, and all my pages are indexed, several of my pages are even listed in the top 10 SERPs for several key phrases. My last post was made 2 days ago and is already indexed. So I don’t know where the “6 months” idea comes from…
Things Joomla doesn’t have:
- Pinging (No plugins for this, I think. It’s the biggest flaw in my CMS). Yet my posts are being spread just fine by using feeds, social media or just google.
- Comments (can be added as a plugin)
- Trackback (can be added as a plugin, I have this, but don’t understand the whole concept)
You can visit my “blog” @ http://www.prohealthblog.com
Quite funny how my blog actually is a website. But what’s in a name?
jimsvarkey
March 1st, 2008 4:25 am
Darren,
yeah, blog is a clear winner. But people still look onto websites as real authority and not the blogs.
Roni
March 1st, 2008 4:55 am
I agree with a lot of the prior comments. A blog IS a web site. ’nuff said.
Ebony Jones
March 1st, 2008 5:09 am
Ditto to Matt above.
A blog is a website. A blog to me is just a term to indentify a flavor of CMS.
If you have a CMS you don’t need a webmaster to update, they have plugins, etc etc.
Most decent CMS’s you can use to blog, you are not confined to Wordpress – Drupal, Joomla, etc
To stand out in the crowd among millions of sites you still need someone to design a good, unique template..using off the shelf stuff won’t do.
So I guess in short, I don’t understand the distinction the author is trying to make…unless he is talking about static html website vs. CMS
Shari
March 1st, 2008 5:56 am
I don’t know if websites are dead, but I definitely agree that blogs present a fully viable alternative to conventional website development, for establishing a web presence.
Shama Hyder
March 1st, 2008 6:24 am
I think it’s best to incorporate a blog into a website. Our whole site is built on WP.
We get the benefits of being able to update the website whenever, as well as interact with clients!
Apples
March 1st, 2008 8:07 am
If I subscribed to a newsletter on a traditional website, and they emailed me every day, it wouldn’t take long to become annoyed.
Yet, I look forward to daily emails from blogs. So to me, there is a difference.
There will probably always be a place for non-interactive websites, but, we haven’t yet seen the real potential of blogs.
BeatlesLane
March 1st, 2008 8:19 am
I don’t agree with “It takes three to six months for the big search engines to find you with a website. It takes two or three days with a blog.” My Website was in Google and Yahoo! (and maybe others, I didn’t check) within 2-3 days of launch. I just linked to it from another one of my unrelated sites.
Also, with “wait for someone to make changes to your website” are we assuming that site owners can’t do their own building and updating? I think the list generalizes too much.
Chip
March 1st, 2008 10:17 am
I believe “killed” is a bit strong. How about looking at it as an evolution. You can be nimble with a blog and more often than not, the big static sites (I’m talking ginormours corporate-driven) have so much invested in them, there’s resistance to start over with anything more than a simple makeover.
hyms
March 1st, 2008 11:44 am
Based on my own experiance sight: Both of them have pros and contras, for site its depend on what kind of content, if you create the website which build the friend matching such as friendster or my space than it will be more seach engine friendly and automated update daily. Blog more slower compare with website.
Chris Auman
March 1st, 2008 12:51 pm
This entry is a bit biased I think. Websites are clunky? Only if they’re designed in such a way. You can setup your blog in minutes? Not if you’re a non-technical person and not if you want to do it right. (Just say “no” to free blogs) You have to wait for someone to update your site? Not if you’re technical and not if you use a nice content management system or Dreamweaver!
Anyway, not a fair assessment. A rare miss for Darren.
Andrew Shim
March 1st, 2008 1:11 pm
Don’t completely agree. Blogs are an easy entry point for everyone. However, when you look into the code behind your blog, you can get a heart attack! Even after years of running my own website with PHP, I still get lost in the massive mess that blog widgets and tools cause in the background. And when something screws up, do bloggers REALLY know where and what to look at? More than half of the bloggers I know rely on cut and paste solutions to solve their problems, not knowing that they may be causing an even messier mess. You even have to tell them WHERE to paste the code! When things get out of hand, they press the reset button : reinstall Wordpress (or whatever).
I love my websites because I control the code behind it. I can’t with a blog, because EVERY damn thing is interconnected with a million and one variables. If I adjust the left toe, the right ear turns into a nose etc. etc.!!!!
Another issue I have with blogs is that every tom, dick and harry can now have a massive (spam) presense on the Internet built around content stolen from webmasters who have spent years working their tails off. I call these leeches blog(block)-heads.
Andy Wibbels
March 1st, 2008 2:07 pm
Thanks for the linky-loo Darren/SFB!
Nick
March 2nd, 2008 3:31 am
I think that blogs are the simplest way to get a reference website up and running. I decided to blog my three week vacation for friends and family. I’m done with the trip, but there’s enough content and Google search traffic that I am going to put in a couple of days to redesign the theme to be more of a reference site – less emphasis on chronological posts and the RSS feed, more on re-categorization, add monetization, links to “random” posts, etc. I just need to find the time to think it through!!
I’ve done simple 5-page reference sites before. The tough part is that you lose access to all the great plug-in work and theme design that people are contributing. With over 50 pieces of content, giving up something in the short run to get it running with WP got the project going.
If someday I get a tremendous amount of hits for the static blog, I can always put in the investment to have somebody convert the content to a non-blog format.
Chris Christensen
March 2nd, 2008 7:07 am
I had a big surprise this week. I was talking to my wife this week about switching our church’s website to a blog. As the conversation went along it got more an more confusing. I realized after a while that she thought anyone could go to any blog and post an entry. Now I have been blogging for 4 years (and podcasting 2.5 years) and my wife has both an engineering degree (biomedical) and an MBA. But she does not live inside the bubble as I do. So while I agree with your conclusion, don’t assume that everyone knows.
Motti
March 2nd, 2008 7:45 am
I understand the blogs are the new way but i think that the decision to decide weather to build a blog or a traditional website is all about the structure that you want.
Of course you can change any blog to look like a website and vice verse, but if you want to choose the correct way. Just think, what is the structure to you need: is it more suitable to be a blog (more personally type, date arranged) or is it should a website ?
When you have this answers you can start and choose the right platform for your new website.
It’s not all blogs out some website can’t be transfered in a blog without loosing their core.
Cynthia
March 2nd, 2008 7:48 am
Last year I converted all of my websites to blogs for the simple reason of ease of updating. When I was building and working with Front Page updating was a time consuming process. My husband has his own site and he needed me to update for him. Now, with Wordpress he can update on his own (geez, sounds like one of those potty training commercials! I’m a big kid now!)
The point is, I’m primarily a writer and now I can update my sites on a daily basis which is something I was never able to do before Wordpress came around.
On the downside – as an entertainment reporter blogs that look like blogs are often disrespected when it comes to giving reporters access, etc. Because they’re so easy to build everyone can do it and that has made them appear less than “professional” I guess.
Hammer
March 2nd, 2008 1:40 pm
It’s been said several times already but since when isn’t a blog a website. It’s a site on the web. Hello?
Sherrie
March 3rd, 2008 12:05 am
Interesting points, but I disagree, as well. I had been happily tweaking my site for about a year using ebizwebpages.com, until I got into a “mentoring” relationship with an internet guru and he convinced me to move it to a Wordpress blog. His techie said “We can make it look just like you want it”. NOT! First, it never looked exactly like I wanted it and I couldn’t change anything about how it looked myself. I finally gave up and went back to ebizwebpages.com. Costs me a little more each month, but I can add pages with different formats, change the colors, etc. all by myself. Oh, did I mention there is a blog feature, as well? It may be clunky for a pro, but for a relative newbie and non-techie like me, it works great!
I’d be willing to be Ms. Falter-Barnes has never done anything with her blog other than add content to it.
Book Business
March 3rd, 2008 3:01 pm
I found this column odd, really. My first site was created in 1994 and now I have four blogs and five static sites (although I’d not distinguish “static” as being the only non-blog kind of site, as some comments seem to–many dynamic sites are not blogs). The different formats serve different purposes.
Blogs have a number of drawbacks for some applications. For information sites, it is often much better for the VISITOR, to have the site created in some sort of hierarchal system, based on topics and subtopics, with the most basic, ground-floor info at the home page, working down. This makes much more sense for a browser, than a LIFO system that blogs serve.
IMO, real blogs (as opposed to a “regular,” dynamic site created with blog software) are best for a regular reader who is browsing within a theme, (like someone interested in the latest info on professional blogging), as opposed to someone wanting, for example, to take a tutorial on a piece of software.
That said, I think most of the points can readily be argued against (even forgiving the author for not realizing that blogs are a subset of websites and she should have used another term to name “non-blogs”).
(1) Websites and blogs can both be either clunky or lean; cheap or expensive.
(2) Learning to update a website (with decent software) takes not more time than learning to update a blog (with same). Both can be easily updated and modified.
(3) I actually found setting up a new site quicker than setting up a WP blog, due to configuration.
(8) Huh? My sites take about 48-72 hours to get indexed.
Pete Moring
March 3rd, 2008 7:39 pm
Not sure if it’s the same with paid hosting blogs, but the free ones like Blogspot & Wordpress have a massive control over your blog as opposed to a website.
You can have your blog disabled in an instant if it’s a free one, just on the whim of a disgruntled or just maliscious visitor.
With Blogspot, you can usually get back online in a day or two. With Wordpress it can take weeks or months.
It would be good to hear other’s experiences along these lines. I have paid and free blogs, but thankfully this has only happened on three occasions. Twice with Blogspot, once with Wordpress. Both were free blogs.
Cheers,
Pete.
Scott Marlowe
March 3rd, 2008 11:17 pm
Pete,
I use BlogEngine.NET because I was looking for an open source, ASP.NET based hosting engine and, well, that’s exactly what BlogEngine is. Since I wanted something that would provide the higher level functionality of something like WordPress but also allow me to tweak things at the code level, it really fit the bill. I’ve been using BlogEngine on my site for a few months now and so far I’m happy with it.
I did, however, use Blogspot previously. For me, it was the inability to really customize and tweak things to the degree I wanted to that led me away from it. I never did have any problems with being locked out. Maybe I just got lucky?
Scott
Laura Benjamin
March 4th, 2008 2:26 am
Absolutely! I’m encouraging my clients to save their money on a website and go with a blog. In addition, I just closed down the email newsletter I’ve had for 8 years and encouraged all my subscribers to visit my blogs and sign up. I’m no longer interested in fighting the battle of bogus subscribers, trying to get through filters, and keeping up with folks ever changing email addresses.
Now, if they want the content, they can come and get it. I don’t have to keep multiple information sources going at the same time, and like you said in your post, it’s very easy for me to figure out which posts are most popular, which topics people enjoy the best and continue to refine my informal market research efforts.
Thank you for providing such a helpful resource!
Brian Morgan
March 4th, 2008 7:54 am
Blogs VS Websites, I think that blogs have a certain audience and that Websites do also. I would have to say that I have the Internet and Also Television, I use both for different reasons, not “one or the other” – I think many technologies are this way, they become new “media” and “new ways” to access knowledge and information. I think the “real need” that I have while online is “targeting the best credible information that I am looking for” and generally that means I don’t want to waste time “surfing through sites and blogs that are not credible information” – give me the “worthy” Top 10 for a particular topic and I’ll be happy. More later- Brian Morgan
LiNTEK
March 4th, 2008 6:22 pm
I believe that blogs have not killed conventional websites, of course this is based on the content of a conventional website and a blog.
But I do believe that blogs have come to a point where they have become a bit more relevant and faster source of information.
Well, I could be wrong.
PMP Magazine
March 4th, 2008 6:55 pm
I’m curious what do you call “conventional” website? Some non-dynamic-plain-HTML site? If so, they were dead long time before blogs were spread widely.
Now, even the minimal websites are usually manages by CMS, and usually owner can update site himself, fast and “on the run”.
I would say where is no much difference between blog run by individual and some big site run by organization (e.g. some news or informational site), just the number of authors, maybe.
Kristen Brooke Beck
March 5th, 2008 5:23 am
OK, gotta add my 2 cents on this one.
I feel that the person who wrote this doesn’t quite have the facts strait. So let’s get technical.
A website is a website, a place on the Internet where you can store files, run code, access databases, and display web pages.
A blog a series of dated entries which can be distributed via feed and shown on webpages.
A website may have a blog in it, but it’s still a website.
Let’s use a metaphor: a house. Some houses have lots of rooms. Some only have one or two rooms. Some are used strictly for “home” living, while others are also used to run home-based businesses. No matter what kind of rooms the house has or how those rooms are used, the house is still a house. It’s not a living room. It’s not a bathroom. It’s a house.
Likewise, a website may have many parts, a blog, a forum, a file-sharing community, articles, calculators, etc. But it’s still a website.
If you run your own website, you can update it whenever you like, even at the airport. The same goes for the blog section of your site.
If you don’t know how to run your own website, or the blog on your website, then you can hire a 3rd party to do it for you. And yes, if you want to update it, you’ll have to contact the 3rd party and wait for them to update it.
And in my experience, search engines, customers, and media outlets find my websites just as quickly as they find the blogs on my websites and my sites with just blogs (usually within just days or weeks, faster if you start marketing them). And I’ve made lots of friends from my website. I’ve joined communities and added widgets. I’ve even added a commenting system to every article page, so I can get to know my visitors. Plus, here’s a little bonus, I can work out the kinks in an article, calculator, etc. by letting a small number of random online visitors test it and give feedback before I publicize and market it. This reduces the “oops I made a mistake on last week’s post” entries.
Lindsey
March 7th, 2008 1:30 am
Please forgive me if I happened to miss any dates, but I’m wondering just how long ago this particular book was written.
I think that “clunky” can often times be translated to mean, “slow loading”, or if Front Page is the only software you have to build pages with, I can see some “clunkiness” there too.
I’m not sure if the original author was aware, but most blogging platforms these days are actually slower than the standard html built sites, because of all of the flash elements they contain. As far as running a database in the backend? Well, php, asp, cfm and others are actually faster than most blog scripts are.
We also musn’t forget the fact that blogs more often than not, will attract all of what would be unseemly on the web. Automated sql injection attempts are rampant, site scrapers will steal your content, and automated comment bots will visit your blog much more frequently as a result of the blogging popularity the web has most recently discovered.
Then, there are all of the server resources being used as a result of all of these unwanted pests.
Sure, there are some great programs/scripts online that you can install to prevent some of these unwanted visitors, but you won’t ever be able to catch them all, or prevent the instance of being hacked by some offshore juvenile.
Automated attacks on the internet’s blogging communities has risen 500% in just the last 9 months of 2007 alone.
There never is only one side to anything internet I’m afraid, and blogging, for what it and all of the potential good it might do, in the end, still proves itself to be of the riskier ventures online.
With regard to blogging? Yes, you can do almost anything with a blog that can be done with a standard, faster loading, website.
Google has come some distance in the past few years. Changes are recorded on regular sites just as fast or faster in some cases than they are on blogs. Standard sites get about a 10 minute refresh on Google, while blogs will see a refresh in about 30 minutes. And this has been the standard for 2 or more years now.
The only reason why blogs take longer to refresh on Google, is because they contain, not only the backend database, but the front end is “very” heavily scripted, and Googlebot has to pick it’s way through all of that.
3 minutes has been the fastest turnaround I’ve seen Google do, and this was on a few of our managed sites last month.
My opinion is such that says, that if the original author knew how to build his own, then he would have already understood the fact that blogs, in fact, are slower loading, and somewhat more clunky, than standard built sites are.
Joona Nuutinen
March 7th, 2008 7:26 am
Blogs surely have killed conventional websites. There is no point in having a static site anymore. It will not be of any interest. Constantly updating material is the only way to build a web presence today. But in the end I don’t see much difference between a website and a blog – as long as the page is dynamic and active.
Kelly
March 7th, 2008 3:17 pm
Just a heads up: the Get Known Now link doesn’t seem to point to anything but a 404 page on Prologger. :)
Have Blogs Killed Conventional Websites? «
April 8th, 2008 3:59 am
[...] important. I’m just saying that it’s not the only way in. Then, I stumbled upon this blog entry, written by Darren Rowse after he’d interviewed the author of “Blogwild,” a book [...]
George Tallabas
April 10th, 2008 5:24 am
Even though I have a blog page on my website and blog a lot, I receive very few comments. My blogs get viewed quite a bit but again I receive very few comments. One would then ask “Are my blogs boring”? Well, I have become the top blogger in Idaho for ActiveRain.com and have had 10% of all the blogs I have written Featured for their quality. I have also had many Active Rain members tell me I should write a book.
My main site offers a lot of information and receives over 60k hits per month. Dozens have signed up to use the MLS feature where they can search the entire MLS for properties. Without this site I would not be generating the leads I am and I don’t think blogging could replace it and have the same results.
Patricia Beck
April 10th, 2008 8:34 am
I think blogs are such a great way to market one’s business but websites are still necessary. There are so many advantages to blogging, the list does go on and on!
Alex Griffin
June 29th, 2008 4:27 am
It is true.Blog is better than website – design, update, and I can see, search engine index is very fast.
Daniel
July 10th, 2008 10:30 am
I read similar article also named Blogs Killed Conventional Websites?, and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me
Karl Kiss
July 14th, 2008 2:46 am
Over the past few months I have found that almost every website I have setup for clients are using WordPress. I find that it is really easy for the customers to update and once I have set it up then the client is on their own. Blogs and websites are merging!
Christian Solei
July 16th, 2008 9:38 pm
I think it’s best to incorporate a blog into a website. Our whole site is built on WP. We get the benefits of being able to update the website whenever, as well as interact with clients!
Offshore Trusts
July 23rd, 2008 12:12 am
Hello , I agree with this article, just sometimes I read so fast everything and I miss things that after read them again, I can understand it better.. ;). Your Blogs Killed Conventional Websites? Blog Stumbled up and Bookmarked, so I keep updated on every article you write from now now on offshore trusts.
Jie Zhang
July 23rd, 2008 4:14 pm
ebony personal adsBlogs Killed Conventional Websites?
Leap Frog Shopping Cart
July 25th, 2008 2:16 am
Are people still going to use this, its virtually obsolete now isnt it ?
Peter Szabo
July 26th, 2008 5:18 pm
Darren,
yeah, blog is a clear winner. But people still look onto websites as real authority and not the blogs.
John
August 26th, 2008 1:56 pm
I found this blog on Google while searching for emailing large files. I found a great offer on the net which is very relevant to this post. Check it out, you might find it very interesting.
kocsog
September 1st, 2008 8:45 pm
Blogs have come to a point where they have become a bit more relevant and faster source of information.
Rosana
September 16th, 2008 11:35 am
Just follow up your instinct and people will believe you.
maeva
September 17th, 2008 11:35 am
Once things start going right, you could be asked to bring some proof.
maeva
September 24th, 2008 3:37 pm
Just follow up your instinct and people will believe you.
maeva
November 27th, 2008 12:35 pm
I don\’t feel like entering in such a consideration.
maeva
December 21st, 2008 7:36 am
Why do you think things have always to go that way?
maeva
December 30th, 2008 7:36 am
How could we verify the effectiveness of such a possibility?
maynet
February 21st, 2009 1:05 am
Thanx martin, i will try to do your advice
Andrew Mooers
April 1st, 2009 1:54 am
You build a website to be a work horse and do the black and white work of your profession. You create a blog to show the color, responde quickly and show more of the you in the process. More personal and one on one. Video is the same thing..helping the brand, using other senses to create an experience that is memorable.
Comments will be closed off on this post 90 days after it is published. Apologies to those this impacts but it's a regrettable and temporary measure to combat a growing comment spam problem. See our most recent posts where you can comment here.