Medium vs DecapCMS

Easy to use and supportive community for writers.

Valuable learning resource for data science topics.

Potential for writers to earn income from their articles.

A community where writers can showcase their talent.

Variety of topics and user engagement.

Good platform for beginner writers to start their journey.

Decap CMS is praised for its straightforward installation process and its fast, web-based UI that includes rich-text editing and real-time preview capabilities.

The product offers a git-centric workflow that is ideal for static site generation, which helps in tracking, versioning, and managing content changes.

Decap CMS is recognized for cross-platform capabilities, allowing integration with various static site generators and meta-frameworks.

Users can create unlimited custom content types, which adds a level of flexibility not available in many other CMS platforms.

The platform supports multiple languages, making it a good option for international websites.

It provides a simple interface for managing content, which is helpful for developers and content creators without extensive technical knowledge.

Poor customer service and high volume of bots.

Difficulties with subscriptions and account management.

Frustration with content quality and relevance.

Management's lack of communication with users.

Quality of articles varies, with many being superficial or repetitive.

Frustration with the paywall.

Decap CMS may not be ideal for larger or more complex projects due to its feature limitations compared to traditional CMS platforms.

The lack of built-in support for advanced content workflows is seen as a drawback by some users.

Some users note that a solid understanding of Git is necessary to get the most out of Decap CMS, which could deter non-technical users.

Documentation can sometimes be difficult to follow, which may hinder new users during setup and operation.

Continued development and improvements are needed, with bugs that might need addressing as it is still evolving as a platform.

The CMS is less equipped in terms of various integrations compared to more established CMS solutions, making it less versatile in certain scenarios.

Users appreciate the autosave feature, although it can be confusing if they don't know if their story is saved.

The editor allows for flexibility in content creation, which is beneficial for writers.

Medium's editor is seen as a good platform for building a portfolio and gaining a following.

A redesign in the editing experience aims to make tool accessibility clearer for users.

Successful articles often include personalized insights, enhancing the editorial experience.

Users can achieve significant views and earnings from well-promoted articles.

Users appreciate the rich-text editing capability and real-time preview feature, enhancing the editing process.

Achieved high user satisfaction scores, indicating a positive reception of its intuitive interface and extensive features.

Highlighted the CMS ability to work seamlessly with various static site generators, enhancing usability for developers and content creators.

Users mentioned ease of configuration and deployment when setting up Decap CMS for Hugo sites, appreciating the flexibility it offers.

Many users find the editing functions confusing and buried in the interface.

The publication management interface is not intuitive, making it hard for editors to navigate.

Writers often struggle to gain visibility without existing followings.

Users express frustration with the platform's promotional aspects, feeling it's a gamble.

New writers may not have enough visibility to attract readers, making articles feel unsupported.

Users wish for better feedback mechanisms after publishing their articles.

Users experience difficulties with the initial setup, indicating that it can be complicated for non-technical users.

Some users reported a lack of polish in the UI, indicating a need for improvement in user experience design.

Concerns over the interface's complexity were raised, suggesting that not all features are intuitive for new users.

Users noted that content management can become cumbersome without clear navigation, leading to frustration during editing.

Wagtail's admin interface can coexist with existing Django admin interfaces, facilitating integration.

Payload CMS allows flexible configurations when setting up in existing environments.

Middleware setup within the community is being continuously improved, showing commitment.

Good documentation exists for integrating Wagtail with various plugins.

Integration steps for Headless CMS are clear and well-outlined.

Community support and shared experiences provide practical insights.

Simple installation and setup with YAML configuration.

Integrates seamlessly with static site generators like Hugo.

Offers easy integration with static site generators.

Lightweight and minimalist, great for developers.

User interface is easy to navigate for developers.

Version control and Git integration facilitates workflow.

Django-CMS lacks direct integration guidance for existing Django applications.

Payload requires additional setups for storage which complicates integration.

Payload CMS documentation remains incomplete for advanced integrations.

Missing rich text serializer is a common pain point in Payload integration.

Wagtail’s complex setup can be a drawback for beginners.

Users report difficulties finding quality examples and documentation.

Requires understanding of Git which may be a barrier for non-technical users.

Less user-friendly for non-technical users compared to traditional CMS.

Lacks built-in support for complex content workflows.

Customization can be cumbersome without coding knowledge.

May require additional integration efforts for digital marketing tools.

Limited templates may hinder some users.