Comments on: Converting a Wordpress Blog into a Static Site

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:33:22 +0000

No reason why you couldn’t, but for a site with that many pages, I am sure there’d be a better CMS option than this hack.

By: Naeem

Naeem — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:08:07 +0000

can i create a 175000 post html pages ?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:14:19 +0000

You can also use a program called httrack – http://www.httrack.com/

It’s incredibly advanced (too advanced I think) but it will take a website and download every single page and dump it into a local folder. I am not sure how it would handle javascript though.

I am considering using it for some of my Wordpress sites that are basically just static content sites. It would reduce the security overhead and need to upgrade all the time.

Chris

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:14:08 +0000

It most certainly is – check out this post and make sure you thoroughly research redirects and other such matters here and elsewhere there is lots of advice and at least one plugin to help with the process. But remember there are no guarantees.

http://www.sciencetext.com/blogger-custom-domain.html

By: Makeda

Makeda — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:59:42 +0000

I am thinking of converting my blog into a website with my own url. I have my blog on blogger. Is it possible to do the same? Makeda's last blog post..The Single Girls Guide to Valentine’s Day

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:59:08 +0000

I think we most certainly are. From the SEO perspective it is worth having a site that is fresh, but if the site is #1 for its keywords on the basis of skillful setup it doesn’t really matter too much in the end.

By: David Szpunar

David Szpunar — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:13:57 +0000

Nope…and if you look like you need new information and don’t have it, you’ll look worse than if you put up static information that doesn’t say “last post three years ago” Now, you may not get as much attention from search engines, etc. since they do like new stuff, but if you don’t want to commit the resources to stay updated, don’t make a site you have to update! I see this mistake all the time on sites where they didn’t really know how much time it would take to keep the site updated so it reflects poorly on them.

I think we’re in full agreement.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:08:54 +0000

Horses for courses and all that. The guys at CDTS opted not to have the blogging option. Of course, frequently updated content and new information are the lifeblood of blogs , but are not necessarily that important to everyone who wants a website.

By: David Szpunar

David Szpunar — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:30:46 +0000

I suppose it comes down to: update often or not? A static site will scale well and has less security vulnerability surface area, but if your goal is to keep the site updated with fresh information continually (especially across multiple people maintaining the site), a CMS is worth the extra effort and resources.

I like your post either way; I hadn’t actually thought of converting from WordPress to static before. It’s not something I’ll likely ever do, but it’s good to think about what others are doing once in a while; it stimulates new ideas. Thanks.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:24:15 +0000

Yeah, good way to go if you need to use a CMS and want all the pros of Wordpress. Like I said, this particular site is now entirely static, which means no worries about insecure plugins, dynamic page generation, or anything else related to WP and CMS come to that. Simple as it is, it does it’s job for the company very well (they tell me)