{"id":1610,"date":"2017-10-09T15:08:15","date_gmt":"2017-10-09T07:08:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theplantcloner.com\/?p=1610"},"modified":"2017-10-09T15:08:15","modified_gmt":"2017-10-09T07:08:15","slug":"is-the-new-google-sites-functional-enough-to-replace-the-old-sites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/2017\/10\/09\/is-the-new-google-sites-functional-enough-to-replace-the-old-sites\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the new Google Sites functional enough to replace the “old Sites”?"},"content":{"rendered":"

When I first ventured into the freelance consulting business, I had to watch my budget. Back then (in 2007), Google was very generous in providing a cheap domain name registration and just launched Google Apps (which is known as Google Suite now). For US$10 a year, not only could I get a domain name registered, I was given a suite of web apps that were great for a start-up consulting business like mine. I had, three domain names registered and did up all three websites using Google Sites, slc2u.org<\/a>, powerof3consultants.com<\/a> and slc4u.org.<\/del><\/p>\n

In fact, you do not need to register a domain to use Google Sites, anyone with a gmail account has access to, and is able to publish his\/her own website using Google Sites. It is just that, without your own domain, you will need to rely of Google’s assigned domain, something like,\u00a0https:\/\/sites.google.com\/view\/testing-new-sites\/home<\/a>\u00a0 which is not easy to remember and hence not great for business usage.<\/p>\n

Google Sites Classic was simple but functional<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

Although \u201cClassic\u201d was not as flexible as WordPress (that has to be hosted by a web hosting company and costing a lot more), if you compromise a bit, you will be able to live with its shortcomings and utilize its many features (which are free!). \u201c Classic\u201d, though a bit fiddly , does have many useful features, among other things, it allowed a website to be created, mapped to my domain relatively easily. It did not like \u201cscripts\u201d to be inserted but if you are just needing a simple website to do business with, \u201cClassic\u201d will do. There were also a lot of \u201cgadgets\u201d created by users that conferred greater functionalities to websites created using \u201cClassic\u201d. Sadly, many of these once powerful gadgets have now faded or no longer functional.<\/p>\n

Revamped Google Sites to replace the aging \u201cClassic\u201d<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

Just over 10 months ago, on Nov 22, 2016, Google announced a full revamp<\/a> of the Classic Google Sites )\u201dClassic\u201d). A TechCrunch<\/a> article infer that \u201cNew Sites\u201d \u201cis now a product people will want to use. It finally feels like a modern applications and not like the last vestige of Google\u2019s old and forgotten design principles.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n

As I was content with \u201cClassic\u201d for the past 10 years, I did not bother to check out the \u201crevamped\u201d Sites till now. It is not \u201cscientific\u201d of me to take TechCrunch\u2019s words for the truth and thus I spent some time tested \u201cNew Sites\u201d out.<\/p>\n

Test driving \u201cNew Sites\u201d<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

As my web hosting deal for one of my domains hosted with Mochahost will end in November 2017, I had decided, a few days back to migrate this domain name mapping back to Google Suites and what better time than to test drive the \u201cNew Sites\u201d. Though \u201cNew Sites\u201d has many user-friendly features, I had discovered that it was more rigid in many ways compared to \u201cClassic\u201d and decided to revert to \u201cClassic\u201d to hold the landing page for my domain name. Nevertheless, I had set out to give the functionalities of \u201cNew Sites\u201d a good checking over.<\/p>\n

To show how the functionalities of \u201cNew Sites\u201d work, I had to bring my readers from this blog (hosted by WordPress.com) to my \u201cNew Sites\u201d hosted by Google Suite. Readers will see for themselves what I meant when they visit my test site<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I suggest that my reader visit my test site first then return to this article to see if you agree with my take on \u201cNew Sites\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

The Good of \u201cNew Sites\u201d<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Very easy to use.<\/li>\n
  • Integrate almost seamlessly with other apps in Google Suite (Sheets, Docs, Slides, Calendar and Form) and other Google\u2019s apps such as YouTube, Maps etc..<\/li>\n
  • Dynamic adjustment of image size.<\/li>\n
  • Ability to put text box anywhere and mix this with images easily.<\/li>\n
  • Each section \/ segment of a page can have its own background colour (but only yellow) or image.<\/li>\n
  • Via “Embed URL” you can create a “frame” in your website and embed another web page so that your users will not need to navigate away from your site.<\/li>\n
  • Much neater looks and feel compared to \u201cClassic\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The Bad of \u201cNew Sites\u201d<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

      \n
    • The ease of use of \u201cNew Sites\u201d does come with a price\u2026. Editing flexibility and functionality are curtailed.<\/li>\n
    • You have virtually no choice of fonts (well you can choose only three each from the six themes available). At least \u201cClassic\u201d gives me 6 different front & I can apply any font to any section independent of each other.<\/li>\n
    • You cannot change the colour of the text font or highlight your text.<\/li>\n
    • Captions for images are not integrated into the image and you cannot use a different font for captions<\/li>\n
    • A lot of functionalities of \u201cClassic\u201d, especially to do with domain name settings etc. are either missing or hidden from users when you are using \u201cNew Sites\u201d.<\/li>\n
    • No choice of whether you want sitemap or not.<\/li>\n
    • Features of \u201cClassic\u201d such as using a page as a Web page, Announcement, List, or File Cabinet are missing, restricting its use. Announcement is especially important as some use it as a news page or even blog page.<\/li>\n
    • No \u201cgadgets\u201d available, thus I could not for instance RSS this blog to my websites if I migrate to \u201cNew Sites\u201d.<\/li>\n
    • Sites are now stored with Google Drive and not their own dedicated storage under Google Sites (sites.google.com) as in “Classic”. If like me, you have thousands of files in Google Drive, organizing files for “New Sites” is that much harder.<\/li>\n
    • And the list goes on\u2026..<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Who\/when one should use \u201cNew Sites\u201d?<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

      Because of the ease of use of \u201cNew Sites\u201d coupled with its almost full integration with Google Apps, \u201cNew Sites\u201d will be great for situations where one will need to put up a website quickly.<\/p>\n

      For example, a lecturer or teacher will be able to put up a site to share with her\/his students images, links and even full Google Docs \/ Sheets. A social group can easily embed a Google Form in \u201cNew Sites\u201d for instance to let members register for an event. \u201cNew Sites\u201d is also very useful when a company\u2019s usual website is suddenly nonfunctional (DOS attacks or problems with the web hosting company) and an emergency site has to be put up.<\/p>\n

      Should \u201cClassic\u201d users migrate to \u201cNew Sites\u201d?<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

      TechCrunch mentioned that Google may want all \u201cClassic\u201d users to migrate to the \u201cNew Sites\u201d. Will I be willing to do this? At present, my answer is ABSOLUTELY<\/span> NO<\/span>! <\/b><\/p>\n

      Well not until all the existing domain name handling and editing features of Google Docs (or at least the old \u201cClassic\u201d) can be made available to users of \u201cNew Sites\u201d.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The 10-months-old revamped Google Sites still has a long way to go to match the functionalities of “Classic” Google Sites that it is supposed to replace. “Classic” users will be very reluctant to migrate due to the lack of functionalities in “New Sites”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1762,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3],"tags":[78,180,181,309,534],"class_list":["post-1610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-learning","tag-classic-sites","tag-google-sites","tag-google-suite","tag-new-sites","tag-website"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1610\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1762"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/slc4u.org\/wp-new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}