This project is read-only.

Discussion around managing content

Topics: Administration
Jun 19, 2012 at 4:50 AM

I've been watching the Orchard project for awhile now, and with particular interest after what's happened with Umbraco. 

I'm perplexed at how people actually manage content in Orchard. There is a 'Content Items' section of the site. Which provides a flat table listing of all content. This seems entirely unworkable compared to other CMS systems which follow a tree hierachy of content.

Is there a module which replaces this? Or is there something else I'm missing?

Jun 19, 2012 at 8:45 PM

It's workable, although I certainly agree that it has lots of room for improvements.
One great improvement is Vandelay's module, which creates a sub menu item per content type under the Content menu item.
Also, 1.5 will have search capabilities.

And, probably the best thing of all, you could actually help us improve! :)

Jun 20, 2012 at 6:51 AM

Ow nice to hear about the 1.5 search thing, but is there a roadmap somewhere with planned release dates?

And yes, I agree that it currently is a PITA to handle plenty of content.

Jun 20, 2012 at 7:28 AM
sfmskywalker wrote:

And, probably the best thing of all, you could actually help us improve! :)

Heh, I knew this was coming... :) I'd certainly love to have a look.. I have a feeling however, in that this is would require a major architectural change.

Jun 20, 2012 at 7:54 AM

You can choose to generate a edit button for each page in the frontend. This way you only have to go to the backend to create new content items and edit items by the frontend link. I believe in V1.5 we can really edit content in the frontend without a edit link to the backend.

Jun 20, 2012 at 7:00 PM

@ctolkien I know the tree of Umbraco seems very easy to use but it has many disadvantages. For instance:

- What if you have 100/1000s or more nodes under the same parent node (like our customers). You can use a search box to filter them of this is very limited to what can be done in a structure Orchard/WordPress uses. Take a look at for example the users management section in Orchard (which are also contentitems) and see what is mean.

-  Only a node name of each item in the tree is not very user friendly if you ask me. I see that users with the same title renames the items with a postfix like -2 -3 -4,etc. Only a node name is clear enough to me.

- If you have node type which you want to group by year month you can use datefolders package but unfortunately searching and filtering on these dates is not efficient. Especially if you have 100 to thousands of items.

Summary: For really small sites can a tree be useful (and easy, i admit) but i think the Orchard/Wordpress way is much more scalable. Ofcourse there are things that can be improved. Hopefully we can gather together some ideas to make it even better.

Jun 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Orchard is completely extensible. For instance the Search is just another tab in the Contents page, which means tomorrow you will have the current default tab with content items and simple filtering, a Search tab with full text search, and nothing prevents you from creating a module which would provide custom views for your content, so any customer has the view which is best suited for his needs.

Another aspect is localization for instance, or personal content (my dashboard), or classified by division, it can be everything, thus there can't be a single solution. It must be a set of possibility that each website will take for its own purpose. We just provide a default one.

We also have a patch in the pipe to provide results from custom queries in the admin, using Projections, so you can even add those screens without requiring any code or external module.

Jun 20, 2012 at 9:01 PM

@sebastienros that sounds really great! Can't wait to see the results :) Many thanks!