Blog Post

What is Content Management System (CMS)?

What is Content Management System (CMS)?

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn

A content management system, often abbreviated as CMS, is software that helps users create, manage, and modify content on a website without the need for specialized technical knowledge.

In simpler language, a content management system is a tool that helps you build a website without needing to write all the code from scratch (or even know how to code at all).

Instead of building your own system for creating web pages, storing images, and other functions, the content management system handles all that basic infrastructure stuff for you so that you can focus on more forward-facing parts of your website.

Beyond websites, you can also find content management systems for other functions – like document management.

  • How Does a Content Management System Work?
  • What Are Examples of Popular Content Management Systems?
  • What Is the Best CMS Platform?
  • How to Build a Website with a Content Management System

How Does a Content Management System Work?

To give you an idea of how a content management system works, we’re going to take a whirlwind tour of the WordPress interface (WordPress is a good example of a content management system).

Let’s start with creating a piece of content. Without a content management system, you’d need to write a static HTML file and upload it to your server (sounds complicated, right?).

With a content management system like WordPress, you can just write your content in an interface that looks a good bit like Microsoft Word:

How you create content with the WordPress content management system

That’s a lot simpler, right?

Similarly, to upload and manage media, like images, you can just browse the media library instead of needing to actually interact with your web server directly:

How you manage images and other media with a content management system

The content management system isn’t just a backend management interface, though. It also makes all of the content that you create show up for your visitors exactly like you want it to.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

What Makes up a Content Management System?

On a more technical level, a content management system is made up of two core parts:

Advertisements
  • A content management application (CMA) – this is the part that allows you to actually add and manage content on your site (like you saw above).
  • A content delivery application (CDA) – this is the backend, behind-the-scenes process that takes the content you input in the CMA, stores it properly, and makes it visible to your visitors.

Together, the two systems make it easy to maintain your website.

What Are Examples of Popular Content Management Systems?

WordPress, which we showed you above, is the best example of a popular content management system. While there are certainly other content management systems in existence, WordPress maintains over a 40.0% market share on websites with a known content management system.

Note that when we mention “WordPress”, we’re not talking about WordPress.com. Instead, we’re focused on WordPress.org, which is the website where the actual open-source WordPress content management system is stored.

Beyond the self-hosted WordPress software, other popular content management systems include:

  • Joomla
  • Drupal
  • Magento (for eCommerce stores)
  • Squarespace
  • Wix
  • TYPO3

There are also lots of other less well-known content management systems that target themselves to large enterprises (with an expensive price point to match).

What Kinds of Websites Can You Build with Those Content Management Systems?

Most content management systems are pretty flexible nowadays. While there are some that focus on a specific use – like Magento and eCommerce – most of the popular content management systems can be used to create essentially any type of website.

For example, you can use WordPress to power:

  • Static websites
  • Blogs
  • eCommerce stores
  • Forums
  • Social networks
  • Online courses
  • Membership sites
  • Portfolios
  • Etc.

What Is the Best CMS Platform?

This is a little bit like asking, “what is the best flavor of ice cream?”.

Sure, everyone’s got their answer, but it’s difficult to come up with a factual argument for one content management system being the best in 100% of situations.

What we can do, though, is return to the numbers and make a suggestion that there’s a reason WordPress has such a dominant share of the content management system market:

For most types of websites, it provides the most user-friendly, flexible solution. It’s not always the best option, but it is the best option most of the time.

For a deeper comparison of some of the popular content management systems, you can view our posts on:

  • WordPress vs Drupal
  • WordPress vs Squarespace

How to Build a Website with a Content Management System

Want to build your own website with a content management system? If so, the general process looks something like this:

  • Purchase web hosting and a domain name
  • Install your content management system of choice on your web server
  • Configure the content management system to dictate how your site looks and functions
  • Start writing content using the content management system’s interface

Recent Post

The relationship between father and adolescent PA was also moderated by how the girls’ PA was measured (p Mental support The essential are not claimed types of emotional societal help was reassurance, in just five other degree reporting more type of mental social help (talking letter = step one, seeing letter = 1, compliment letter = step 1, complete psychological help letter = 1). On account of these lower quantity to many other forms of emotional help, and because various forms from psychological support get influence PA within the different ways, we decided to manage analyses just on connectivity anywhere between support and you will PA (look for Dining table 5). Small however, high connectivity were recognized for each and every seller out-of reassurance with the adolescent ladies PA (roentgen = 0.10-0.21). But not, there can be significant heterogeneity for many of your own connections with the exception of father support. Because of the lower shot items from the meta-analyses, moderator data was just performed to have mother encouragement no tall moderators was indeed understood (p > 0.05). Instrumental assistance Training one given relationships anywhere between important help and you can PA was indeed faster common; having business plus mothers, parents (come across Dining table 5). Education were included in the crucial support meta-analyses once they reported on the relationship between standard crucial help, transport, economic, or logistic support getting PA. These types of instrumental assistance was in fact shared to form a mixture crucial support impression size, due to the reasonable variety of personal important service connectivity stated. High contacts was recognized to own mothers and you will mother important help towards the adolescent girls’ PA (roentgen = 0.17-0.21), but father instrumental support wasn’t significant (roentgen = 0.23). Due to the low sample sizes, moderator analysis was only performed for parent instrumental support. As only six studies were available, separate models had to be conducted for each proposed moderator. This identified age and geographical location as significant moderators of parent instrumental support. Studies conducted in the USA had larger effect sizes (r = 0.20, 95 % CI 0.16-0.24) than those conducted in Australia (r = 0.09, 95 % CI 0.01-0.18). Effect sizes were significantly higher (p Modeling and co-participation Short but extreme relationships was basically recognized to have moms and dads, father, and you can pal model into adolescent people PA (r = 0.13-0.16) (select Dining table 5). Zero extreme connections were discovered for model by the moms and dads or nearest and dearest modeling with the adolescent girls’ PA. Although not, there can be high heterogeneity in most of your own relationships. Partners education examined relationships anywhere between co-participation and you can teenage females PA. There had been just sufficient training reporting associations for moms and dads, and mother or father co-participation wasn’t discovered to be significantly related to teenage females PA (r = 0.03). Moderator analyses are performed to have moms and dad, mother, dad, and you can friend modeling. No high moderators had been recognized for parent, mommy, otherwise friend model (p > 0.05). 05). To display so it, subjective steps displayed high feeling brands (roentgen = 0.twenty five, 95 % CI 0.04-0.46) compared with goal actions (roentgen = ?0.03, 95 % CI ?0.28-0.22). There had been not enough education as part of the moms and dad co-participation meta-analysis to perform moderator data. Book prejudice Funnel plots (available from corresponding author) were inspected for evidence of publication bias, which suggested possible publication bias for friend modelling and PA. Fail-safe N analysis was subsequently conducted. This found that 505 additional studies in which the effect was zero would be needed for the overall effect to be statistically insignificant. This suggests a possible skewed effect size. However, subsequent trim and fill analysis did not suggest it was necessary to trim studies from the analysis, therefore, the effect size remained the same. For other analyses, fail-safe N suggested that few additional studies (

The relationship between father and adolescent PA was also moderated by how the girls’ PA was measured (p Mental support The essential are not claimed types of emotional societal help was reassurance, in just five other degree reporting more type of mental social help (talking letter = step one, seeing letter = 1, compliment letter = step 1, complete psychological help letter = 1). On account of these lower quantity to many other forms of emotional help, and because various forms from psychological support get influence PA within the different ways, we decided to manage analyses just on connectivity anywhere between support and you will PA (look for Dining table 5). Small however, high connectivity were recognized for each and every seller out-of reassurance with the adolescent ladies PA (roentgen = 0.10-0.21). But not, there can be significant heterogeneity for many of your own connections with the exception of father support. Because of the lower shot items from the meta-analyses, moderator data was just performed to have mother encouragement no tall moderators was indeed understood (p > 0.05). Instrumental assistance Training one given relationships anywhere between important help and you can PA was indeed faster common; having business plus mothers, parents (come across Dining table 5). Education were included in the crucial support meta-analyses once they reported on the relationship between standard crucial help, transport, economic, or logistic support getting PA. These types of instrumental assistance was in fact shared to form a mixture crucial support impression size, due to the reasonable variety of personal important service connectivity stated. High contacts was recognized to own mothers and you will mother important help towards the adolescent girls’ PA (roentgen = 0.17-0.21), but father instrumental support wasn’t significant (roentgen = 0.23). Due to the low sample sizes, moderator analysis was only performed for parent instrumental support. As only six studies were available, separate models had to be conducted for each proposed moderator. This identified age and geographical location as significant moderators of parent instrumental support. Studies conducted in the USA had larger effect sizes (r = 0.20, 95 % CI 0.16-0.24) than those conducted in Australia (r = 0.09, 95 % CI 0.01-0.18). Effect sizes were significantly higher (p Modeling and co-participation Short but extreme relationships was basically recognized to have moms and dads, father, and you can pal model into adolescent people PA (r = 0.13-0.16) (select Dining table 5). Zero extreme connections were discovered for model by the moms and dads or nearest and dearest modeling with the adolescent girls’ PA. Although not, there can be high heterogeneity in most of your own relationships. Partners education examined relationships anywhere between co-participation and you can teenage females PA. There had been just sufficient training reporting associations for moms and dads, and mother or father co-participation wasn’t discovered to be significantly related to teenage females PA (r = 0.03). Moderator analyses are performed to have moms and dad, mother, dad, and you can friend modeling. No high moderators had been recognized for parent, mommy, otherwise friend model (p > 0.05). 05). To display so it, subjective steps displayed high feeling brands (roentgen = 0.twenty five, 95 % CI 0.04-0.46) compared with goal actions (roentgen = ?0.03, 95 % CI ?0.28-0.22). There had been not enough education as part of the moms and dad co-participation meta-analysis to perform moderator data. Book prejudice Funnel plots (available from corresponding author) were inspected for evidence of publication bias, which suggested possible publication bias for friend modelling and PA. Fail-safe N analysis was subsequently conducted. This found that 505 additional studies in which the effect was zero would be needed for the overall effect to be statistically insignificant. This suggests a possible skewed effect size. However, subsequent trim and fill analysis did not suggest it was necessary to trim studies from the analysis, therefore, the effect size remained the same. For other analyses, fail-safe N suggested that few additional studies (

Category