|WikiProject Computing / Software|
Can our website builder be included
Here are links to sites that tell how to create web pages:
http://www.havingmyownwebsite.net/easy-to-set-up-websites.aspx Setting up a Website http://2createawebsite.com/ 2 Create a Website http://good2gowebdevelopments.com.au
Disclosure: The first one I myself created and have been updating for the last 3 years.
It makes sense to me to explain how to build a website, and this seems like a good place to put such links. Webmaven 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) webmaven
This website has an online tool that builds your website for you: http://www.good2gowebdevelopments.com.au
The above mentioned tool is a paid program. I think it's a little more appropriate to share knowledge and help others, at least that is the idea I get from Wikipedia. Since the discussion is "Website Builder" I think it is completely appropriate to mention a great open source publishing platform called Wordpress. You can find more about Wordpress by visiting http://wordpress.org/ and also reading the Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress. I would also have to say that video tutorials are the quickest way to overcome the learning curve involved with Wordpress. I have found these video tutorials to be most helpful for beginners, see them here http://www.webhostingvote.com/make-a-website/
- This is an encyclopedia, so links to tutorials and how-tos are rarely going to be strongly relevant to articles here. When they are relevant, we want to make sure they do not violate WP:SPAM and WP:EL. I don't feel such links would be appropriate for this article at all, since the topic is software applications for building websites and any how-to would have to be specific to a single application. Secondly, the links above seem too commercial. Even if they were not so commercial, there are other articles written by notable experts that would be far better to include. --Ronz 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I found this page in a horrible state, and have made some clean-ups---in particular, by cutting out dead-weight and problematic statements. Please re-introduce material only with care.
first category: online PROPRIETARY tools?
As I'm working in a hosting company where we use mostly open source software, I find the first category, as defined in the incipit, a little out of place and maybe NPOV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is terrible
I am researching website builders for a project and I'm finding this page to be inaccurate and basically useless. It does not reflect the state of things as they are nowadays. Perhaps I will try to rework it at some point. John L. Kenney (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Criticism and suggested rewrite
I do agree that there is quite a bit that can be said about this article. In short, my criticism of the current article content would be:
- entire sections about offline website builders overlap with the article about HTML editors. These should at least be shortened, cleaned up and referred to the better written article.
As far as hosted (on-line) website builders are concerned;
- the article only mentioned a few (not even the biggest)
- whether companies provide examples of what sites made with their software look like is not very relevant. instead, most (with the exception of 1 or 2) offer free trials.
- the range of services ("anywhere between creating basic personal web pages or social network content (Widgets) to making complete business/e-commerce websites") is too general and in-accurate. widgets do not constitute social network sites, but are plug-and-play features.
- the fact that online website builders are easy to use, does, yes, make them accessible to beginners, but also provides high-productivity tools to advanced users (which went unmentioned).
- discussion of HTML vs. Flash contains factual inaccuracies, is out of date and not needed in this context. If it is available elsewhere, we'd better link to that.
- "Off-line web builders cater to professional web designers" is biased and unsourced, and in fact largely contradicted in the discussion of the HTML Editors page.
- "Modern off-line web builders are usually both WYSIWYG and allow direct editing of source code and cascading style sheets (CSS) styling" is meaningless because so do many hosted solutions. It is not a feature specific for either.
- "They are more flexible than on-line builders, but may be expensive to buy." is biased and unfounded. Many of the hosted solutions offer a flexibility that is on par with HTML editors. (putting on flame-proof suit) How can they not if they offer direct HTML and CSS editing???
I am suggesting a thorough rewrite to get this article to be useful for readers.
I've invested time in a first draft, which lives at my userpage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skcommunity/Draft_rewrite_Website_builder
All comments are welcome there.
Website builders list
It is inappropriately to present 3 website builders in the article. There are more than hundred website builders. And those that are displayed here are not the best representatives. Finding out the best is a disputable issue as there are no trustworthy comparison methods. It looks like advertising now. I suggest either to remove those 3 website builders or add other representatives to the article.Botifar (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is woeful
Who can raise the tail of a dog?
At first I was pleased to find here besides others a website builder from my homeland. Then I clicked to the link of this builder and read the article... In my native language there is a proverb "Who can raise the tail of a dog? Only dog himself!" The article sounded like a good advertizing. Then I searched for the contributors of the table of this main article "Website builder", and of course, the same people have added their builder here also. So, I am a little worried about our Wiki - the last fortress of neutrality and impartiality in our obtrusive WWW-World. And I am somehow ashamed that also Wiki-contributors from my country are reducing the trustworthiness of Wiki in English, the most public branch of it.