Do you prefer Thrive architect or Elementor and why?

Ryuzaki

お前はもう死んでいる
Staff member
BuSo Pro
Digital Strategist
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,334
Likes
8,343
Points
8
I would appreciate if you could link to Ryuzaki's post that delves into this matter.

I am myself, a bit frustrated with page builders.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about my post at the top of this thread.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
27
Likes
11
Points
0
I'm pretty sure he's talking about my post at the top of this thread.
Ah, right, thanks for that.

He said in the orientation section and I went there searching. Now I feel ashamed.

Anyway, about your comment Mr. Ryu.

You are absolutely right.

But what would you say if a page builder can output static pages?
 

Ryuzaki

お前はもう死んでいる
Staff member
BuSo Pro
Digital Strategist
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,334
Likes
8,343
Points
8
But what would you say if a page builder can output static pages?
They all can with proper server-side caching. That's not really the problem. The problem is typically all of the extra JS and CSS files they enqueue that are render blocking.

You can concatenate them, you can minify them, you can do both, but you can't get around having to load all that crap before the page can render.

Say you use a page builder because you like the WYSIWYG design style, and you keep it very simple. You still end up loading CSS and JS for every bloated possibility they include. I'm sure some only enqueue specific files if the associated "blocks" or "widgets" or whatever you want to call them are in use. That's the way to do it. But even then they're never really written as efficiently as they could be if you wrote them yourself.

I think that people who can't write simple HTML and CSS tend to have the hungriest eyes.

They want the most cool looking features and crap that doesn't improve user experience and conversions. They're serving themselves, and page builders are happy to exploit that desire for a sale, and more and more bloat occurs.

I think that people who can write simple HTML, CSS, JS, jQuery, PHP... those are the ones that return back to simplicity and efficiency. Both of those attributes are what lead to higher conversions and UX. It takes experience to get there, having to learn a bunch of coding only to realize most of it should be shrugged off and left on the drawing board and not actually placed into action on the live site. By doing it yourself, you measure and realize that all the complexity is hurting you and your users.

That's when you start to embrace simpler design philosophies like flat design and minimalism. And then suddenly your site runs faster, your coding and design efforts are completed faster, your user metrics improve, and so does your bottom line.

It's the curse of being a noob. You want the most but couldn't have it because you didn't have the skills, until page builders dragged us back to the Geocities / Angelfire stone ages.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
27
Likes
11
Points
0
They all can with proper server-side caching. That's not really the problem. The problem is typically all of the extra JS and CSS files they enqueue that are render blocking.

You can concatenate them, you can minify them, you can do both, but you can't get around having to load all that crap before the page can render.

Say you use a page builder because you like the WYSIWYG design style, and you keep it very simple. You still end up loading CSS and JS for every bloated possibility they include. I'm sure some only enqueue specific files if the associated "blocks" or "widgets" or whatever you want to call them are in use. That's the way to do it. But even then they're never really written as efficiently as they could be if you wrote them yourself.

I think that people who can't write simple HTML and CSS tend to have the hungriest eyes.

They want the most cool looking features and crap that doesn't improve user experience and conversions. They're serving themselves, and page builders are happy to exploit that desire for a sale, and more and more bloat occurs.

I think that people who can write simple HTML, CSS, JS, jQuery, PHP... those are the ones that return back to simplicity and efficiency. Both of those attributes are what lead to higher conversions and UX. It takes experience to get there, having to learn a bunch of coding only to realize most of it should be shrugged off and left on the drawing board and not actually placed into action on the live site. By doing it yourself, you measure and realize that all the complexity is hurting you and your users.

That's when you start to embrace simpler design philosophies like flat design and minimalism. And then suddenly your site runs faster, your coding and design efforts are completed faster, your user metrics improve, and so does your bottom line.

It's the curse of being a noob. You want the most but couldn't have it because you didn't have the skills, until page builders dragged us back to the Geocities / Angelfire stone ages.
I agree with you completely.

But I think you are missing one key aspect here, I feel you have a bit of a bias as you appear to be a proficient coder, and you seem to be able to put up a great looking website that loads fast.

I can tell you that even though my coding skills are pretty much shameful, that is not the reason (at least not the main one) why I am not coding a website.

It's mostly about the design itself and the ability to manage content easily.

You know, stuff like dragging and dropping etc.

I am not good with designing layouts, messing with columns, messing around with CSS for the design would be hell for me as I just get completely overwhelmed with micro design decisions.

Alignments, this and that, doing it with code I can't even imagine, as I don't have a designer heart.

But I am a designer hero when I use these page builders and templating systems.

Anyway, if you think I am wrong I would love to know more and I will just start coding websites.
 

Ryuzaki

お前はもう死んでいる
Staff member
BuSo Pro
Digital Strategist
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
4,334
Likes
8,343
Points
8
Anyway, if you think I am wrong I would love to know more and I will just start coding websites.
My opinion is you gotta pay the cost to be the boss.

If you don't want to learn how to code, you won't learn why I'm saying the things I'm saying, though I did explain them above. If you want the good stuff that you're not really entitled to, that means you have to accept the shortcut, and the shortcut is always packaged together with a poison pill.

Once you've learned how to get "the good stuff" you learn that the good stuff (even without the poison pill) is actually the bad stuff. It's not working in your favor. In web design, SEO, and conversion rate optimization, simpler is almost always better.

You can most certainly learn to code simple designs. But we aren't necessarily talking about learning to code up entire websites. We're just talking about not using bloated page builders. Gutenberg is a great alternative if you stay away from the crazy blocks and use the standard stuff.

The question is, should you invest the time it takes to learn to code custom blocks and design pages the way you want them, etc? Or is that time better spent elsewhere? You can grab simple and fast themes for your CMS, keep your content simple, use Gutenberg or the classic editor, and publish 5x as much content. There's no page builder that's faster the TinyMCE content editor or Gutenberg, as far as I know. Those exist for one reason only - to make the simple become complex while appearing simple and eating up your time clicking through all their wild ass user interfaces.

My own websites look a lot like a BuSo thread. White backgrounds, black text, and some images tossed in. They load fast, Google loves that, the users love it. They stay on the page for crazy long amounts of time, view a lot of ads, click a lot of affiliate links, view multiple pages. I have a site netting me on average a $50 RPM. Another one does $30 RPMs. I don't have my own products or anything like that either with massive ROI. It's low commission affiliate stuff like Amazon and ads.

The other thing to realize about all of this is probably 70% of all of our (me, you, the reader of this post) traffic is mobile on a thin 300px - 450px wide screen. They don't even experience any of the fancy ass design these page builders are trying to offer you. It's one thin column of text. A fancy four column block is collapsed back to your typical one thin column of text for 70% of your users. Nobody cares, and more than half never even see the fancy shmancy stuff.

Just make your site fast and provide engaging content and you'll succeed.

I've said it in the past here on the forum: this is something the industry has known for a long time. Just Google "ugly design converts better":




Look at the age of some of these posts. 2010, 2013, all the way up to less than a week ago.

When people say "ugly design" they don't mean "ugly". They mean it as the opposite of "pretty" and by "pretty" they mean complex. The opposite of complex is simple and minimal. That's what makes you more money.

My proposition is page builders are hurting your revenue, sucking up your time, tanking your page speed, hurting your user metrics, etc. There's better solutions.

That's why I answered "which page builder is the best" with the answer "none of them".

They're a solution to a problem that didn't need solving. The industry already learned this lesson once, which is why WYSIWYG editors went the way of the dinosaur in the late 90's. The way we solved it the first time around was to all stop injecting heroin in our arms. Now it's back and people think the solution is to provide clean needles to the junkies.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
27
Likes
11
Points
0
@Ryuzaki, And don't you think we could have a simple builder that has some built in blocks and even templates that just outputs sane plain HTML?

I can't design stuff from scratch.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
5
Likes
7
Points
0
Elementor I've only used a few times, I haven't used Thrive Architect at all and used Divi for a few sites. Divi is very heavy. I generally try to use Gutenberg or Oxygen builder.

I generally want to keep things as simple as possible with the design.