
A Year to The Day - Naushad
http://blog.ghost.org/a-year-to-the-day/
======
drivingmenuts
Is there anything about Ghost that, intrinsically, makes it better than other
blogging platforms?

Seems to me it's just reinventing a many times reinvented wheel (except this
one is hip and popular).

~~~
modernerd
From an end-user perspective:

1\. It's easier to use than WordPress, Drupal etc. That's because it does much
less than those platforms on purpose. The WordPress admin area has become a
scary place for new users, particularly once they start to add plugins that
litter the admin menu with extra entries.

2\. The admin area is fast. Moving around feels slick – it is a desktop-like
experience; hitting Command+S will save the draft you're working on, for
example, rather than bringing up your browser's “Save Page As...” prompt. The
Markdown preview is as-you-type, and they use the screen estate very well.
It's a comfortable environment to write long posts in, and it hasn't been
tacked on as an afterthought, like WordPress' full-screen editing mode.

3\. The organisation behind Ghost, the "Ghost Foundation" is a non-profit. It
doesn't have investors or shareholders; it is answerable only to its users and
funded by those who pay for official Ghost hosting.

4\. Pricing for official Ghost hosting is very reasonable ($5/month for 1
blog, $14/month for 5 blogs).

5\. Although it's still in development, the proposed Dashboard looks far more
useful than competitors. WordPress' Dashboard often looks like a wasteland
once a few plugins have been installed – a mish-mash of "Upgrade to the PRO
version!" prompts and RSS updates from the WordPress feed.

And from a developer perspective:

1\. GitHub-based workflow.

2\. MIT licence instead of GPL.

3\. Less code debt (for now!).

4\. Handlebars-based theme templates that enforce separation of presentation
and logic. (It will be possible to add custom handlebars tags via the Ghost
Apps API in the future for more advanced stuff, but it's already pretty
solid.)

5\. The official hosted version allows you to upload your own themes (unlike
wordpress.com, for example).

As a developer and end-user, it's already a more enjoyable experience than
competing platforms for simple blogs, and I think by the end of the year –
once the app API has launched and developers are adding forum apps and more –
it will be a real competitor for more complex sites too.

~~~
dotBen
_disclosure: I 'm a former founder of a successful WordPress hosting platform
and spent many years in the WP space._

I'll take the opportunity to counter, if I may...

 _1a. It 's easier to use than WordPress, Drupal etc. That's because it does
much less than those platforms on purpose._

A key stumbling issue with Ghost is writing in Markdown - most non-tech people
use WordPress's WYSIWYG editor because they don't understand markup as a
concept. That's a BIG barrier to entry that Ghost needs to address or remain
niche.

The other big barrier to entry with Ghost is that it's super difficult to
install compared to WP - requires Node.JS which doesn't run on most shared
accounts (where most people host blogs). The average non-technical person
shouldn't be trying to manage a VPS or server.

Yes, there are hosted Ghost services but those cost money, hosted WordPress
starts a $free on wordpress.com.

 _1b. The WordPress admin area has become a scary place for new users,
particularly once they start to add plugins that litter the admin menu with
extra entries._

Most plugins don't abuse the addition of menu items - most of the ones that
create a new root-level menu item do so because they have sophisticated/deep
enough configuration that requires it. I'm not sure that added menu items
makes WordPress particularly "difficult to use" especially if the alternative
is that functionality isn't available in the first place.

 _2\. The admin area is fast. Moving around feels slick – it is a desktop-like
experience; hitting Command+S will save the draft you 're working on, for
example, rather than bringing up your browser's “Save Page As...” prompt. The
Markdown preview is as-you-type, and they use the screen estate very well.
It's a comfortable environment to write long posts in, and it hasn't been
tacked on as an afterthought, like WordPress' full-screen editing mode._

WordPress's /wp-admin/ can be super fast - that's down to where you are
running it. Drafts are saved automatically and with browsable history so the
need for Command-S is removed.

 _3\. The organisation behind Ghost, the "Ghost Foundation" is a non-profit.
It doesn't have investors or shareholders; it is answerable only to its users
and funded by those who pay for official Ghost hosting._

Materially, that's no different to the WordPress Foundation.

 _4\. Pricing for official Ghost hosting is very reasonable ($5 /month for 1
blog, $14/month for 5 blogs)._

Pricing for official WordPress hosting is even more reasonable - free. But
also has a clear path to scalability via various Managed WordPress Providers
if needs be.

 _5\. Although it 's still in development, the proposed Dashboard looks far
more useful than competitors. WordPress' Dashboard often looks like a
wasteland once a few plugins have been installed – a mish-mash of "Upgrade to
the PRO version!" prompts and RSS updates from the WordPress feed._

The "Upgrade to Pro" part is a bit of a straw-man argument. I'm sure there
must be some WP plugins that do that but not many, and any widget on the
Dashboard can be easily moved or removed. Users can customize their dashbord
with what they want, and a reasonable counter-perspective would be that a
small RSS feed of WordPress news and articles isn't a negative.

\---

At the end of the day, debating WordPress vs Ghost is like debating Python vs
Rails or Debian vs Centos. Differently philosophies - Ghost is certainly more
focused on attractive features for developers, WordPress is focused on
mainstream adoption. Makes sense given their relative positions in the market.

I think HN gives WordPress a hard time, applying niche values like code
elegance and utilization of the latest technologies and ignoring in plain
sight the fact that both of those are actually WordPress's advantage. Anyone
can create a plugin, and while many of them are utter shite, there is an
amazing breadth of quality ones out there. And PHP, while derided mostly on
HN, actually is one of the most prevalent languages in terms of install base
and suitability to low-resource shared-environment mainstream use.

A key strategic issue Ghost will need to deal with is that the use-cases for
"blogging" have polarized over the years. People run a blog either as part of
a wider site - which is where WordPress wins given it evolved into a site CMS.
Or blogs are written to be part of a content network - which is where Medium
and Subtle are playing where you get a "Ghost" like experience but the
distribution network to go with it.

~~~
modernerd
I agree with you – WordPress is often criticised within the tech community.
That's because its philosophy has always been to optimise for end-user
happiness first and developer happiness second. If you think something in
WordPress is crazy – such as supporting PHP 5.2 – the reason is normally that
it may be worse for developers, but it is much better for end-users. As soon
as I understood and accepted that, I had much more fun with WordPress.

But I think the criticism in the tech community is also a cry for a strong
alternative. And we have so few good ones today. That's why I'm happy to
champion and celebrate anyone taking on an entrenched platform. If nothing
else, Ghost and competing platforms will encourage WordPress to become
something even better.

Some responses to your comments:

 _Right, so what happens when your needs grow and you need functionality that
extends outside of the envelope of Ghost?_

You'll install Ghost apps, just as you install WordPress plugins like Advanced
Custom Fields if you want to bend WordPress into a more feature-complete CMS.
It's too early to say whether Ghost will succeed at creating a better add-on
system, so perhaps this particular debate is premature. The challenge will be
in creating an API that allows developers to bolt-on features without also
enabling UI cruft and the sort of performance headaches and conflicts you see
with WP plugins, which don't enforce sane practises like namespacing (thanks,
PHP 5.2!).

 _Ghost may be "easier to use" but one thing that is difficult with it over
WordPress is it's a lot harder to install - requires Node.JS which doesn't run
on most shared accounts (where most people host blogs). The average non-
technical person shouldn't be trying to manage a VPS or server._

I agree with you – at the moment the install process is too hard for non-
technical users and a burden for technical ones. But the official Ghost
hosting platform is inexpensive, easy to get started with, and happy to accept
custom themes, so there is little reason for most users to look elsewhere.
Those who want to host a blog themselves already have several alternatives
that don't require sysadmin skills – WebFaction has a Ghost installer, for
example, and they charge shared-hosting prices ($9.95/month). I suspect we'll
see other suppliers who offer Ghost-only hosting to bloggers with lots of
traffic, just as WP Engine and others have done with WordPress.

 _Most plugins don 't abuse the addition of menu items - most of the ones that
create a new root-level menu item do so because they have sophisticated/deep
enough configuration that requires it. I'm not sure that added menu items
makes WordPress particularly "difficult to use" especially if the alternative
is that functionality isn't available in the first place._

The problem is that these menu items can be created in at least three
different areas – under Settings, under Tools, and at the top level. This
makes things harder for users because they have to remember where the menu
item of the configuration page for that plugin they installed four months ago
is. I use WordPress every day and the menu system is a giant game of hunt-and-
peck.

The menu setup also makes things harder for developers because they have to
make the right choice of where their menu item will live. A great many get it
wrong. (They will frequently place items at the top level that should have
been under Settings or Tools.)

Additionally, the menus API invites games of Competitive Menu Trumping, where
developers fight to get their menu item above those of other developers.
Automattic are guilty of this – install their Jetpack plugin and you'll find a
new "Jetpack" menu item right at the top of the menu bar, just below
Dashboard: [http://d.pr/i/AZyt](http://d.pr/i/AZyt) This is either a desperate
call for attention or an admission that the menu system is broken – that if it
was placed under the Settings header instead, the Jetpack settings page might
never be found.

Plugin author "WingerSpeed" has even created a plugin named "Slim Jetpack"
that functions almost exactly like Jetpack, but removes the menu item and
banners from the top of the page. It's been downloaded almost 50,000 times –
nowhere near the 10 million or so downloads that Jetpack itself has, but still
a sign that menu bar bloat, dashboard adverts, and enforced sign-ins are
complications and annoyances that many users would prefer not to have.

 _WordPress 's /wp-admin/ can be super fast - that's down to where you are
running it._

I don't think it's just down to hardware – WordPress is not yet a full MVC-
style JavaScript app. Side-by-side, it does not feel as fast as Ghost on the
front or back end. I just logged into an account I managed with one of the big
WP hosts, and it's a huge improvement over how it feels with shared hosting,
but if you compare it side-by-side with a Ghost blog it feels slower. Perhaps
that's a little unscientific and anecdotal, but raw perception matters. To be
fairer, Ghost's perceived speed is largely because it got a fresh start and
doesn't carry 10 years of baggage, but also because it does less and makes
fewer requests (11 vs 18 for the basic admin page). But the upshot is that it
behaves more like a modern front-end JS app than WordPress currently does
(even though that's changing) – the perceived performance mirrors the
underlying architectural choices.

 _Drafts are saved automatically and with browsable history so the need for
Command-S is removed._

Auto-save is great. I agree that this is better for users. My point was that,
for writers and users with muscle-memory Command+S twitches like me, the fact
that the shortcut triggers a save action instead of a browser menu shows that
the app's been developed to feel more like a desktop one. It's a nice touch.
(I believe the WP post editor disables Command+S when the box has focus, so
it's not like they haven't thought of it – it's just a different approach.)

 _Materially, that 's no different to the WordPress Foundation._

Absolutely. Except that the Ghost Foundation is just the Ghost Foundation.
There is no commercial arm like with Automattic – no for-profit company
feeding from the work of open source contributors (and giving a lot back, to
be fair). Most won't care or appreciate the difference, but it's an important
distinction for some.

 _Pricing for official WordPress hosting is even more reasonable - free._

Sure, it's free if you want to use a modified version of WordPress. It's free
if you don't need to add plugins or themes. It's free if you don't need to
edit CSS. It's free if you don't want to use your own domain. Once you add the
various upgrades or one of their (very decently priced) bundles, and once you
pay for separate email hosting (which WP.com doesn't include), you'll soon be
looking at shared hosting pricing or the headache of migration to a self-
hosted setup. It's great that there's a free entry point, but perhaps
sometimes that can turn into more of a burden than a benefit. Ghost Pro has a
free full-featured trial, for what it's worth.

 _But also has a clear path to scalability via various Managed WordPress
Providers if needs be._

Ghost Pro offers a clear upgrade path that scales based on traffic, just as
managed providers like WP Engine do: [http://d.pr/i/SWHO](http://d.pr/i/SWHO)
If you start with them you can grow with them too.

 _The "Upgrade to Pro" part is a bit of a straw-man argument. I'm sure there
must be some WP plugins that do that but not many, and any widget on the
Dashboard can be easily moved or removed. Users can customize their dashbord
with what they want, and a reasonable counter-perspective would be that a
small RSS feed of WordPress news and articles isn't a negative._

It's not a straw-man argument – it's a genuine problem. I started collecting
screen shots of the Dashboards and various intrusive banners from Dashboards
I've logged into over several years of web consulting and it paints an ugly
picture. (I'll try to publish them in the future if I can strip identifying
features.)

~~~
dotBen
_I just logged into an account I managed with one of the big WP hosts, and it
's a huge improvement over how it feels with shared hosting_

I'm curious, which one were you using?

~~~
modernerd
The site I logged into was with WP Engine (not a site I operate; just one I
help maintain). It's fast, but there's still a perceivable lag when clicking
around the admin area.

I'm not sure if you've played with Ghost much, but I recommend signing up for
a free demo account at [http://ghost.org](http://ghost.org) if you're at all
curious. Create a few posts, click between them on the contents tab, dive into
the (currently very bare!) settings page, and try editing and saving a post –
everything feels almost instantaneous. I don't get that feeling with WP, even
on WP Engine or WP.com.

------
snide
Just as an aside. If you're looking for something built in Node that's more of
a CMS, my Kickstarter for Webhook recently hit it's goal. I really like Ghost
as a blog service, but you might like our system if you need to build a more
customized CMS experience for multiple editors.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1749618880/webhook](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1749618880/webhook)

~~~
egeozcan
Why Firebase + static pages instead of, say, varnish? (Honest question)

~~~
snide
Because people who know HTML and CSS don't know how to set up or manage a
database locally. Even worse, they'd have no idea how to port that data onto a
live production server. Firebase makes the install pretty painless. Our only
dependency is Node. Right now that means even windows users can get up in
running in less than a minute.

As a designer I really like the ease of systems like Jekyll, but it was a dead
stop as soon as I wanted those sites to be editable by other users. This way
we get the best of both systems.

------
dewey
> \- Ghost Dashboard

I'm really excited for that one, that was the reason I installed it in the
first place only to realise it's not available yet.

~~~
AhtiK
-> "Very soon you’ll be seeing a fresh, slick Ghost(Pro) dashboard"

Is "(Pro)" indicating that the dashboard component will be available only for
paying/hosted customers and will not be open-sourced?

~~~
freyr
I doubt it, since the dashboard was a main selling feature of its Kickstarter
campaign. A move like that would probably sacrifice any goodwill its garnered
among early adopters.

~~~
coffeecheque
I think it is, worryingly for early backers.

[http://blog.ghost.org/introducing-
ghostpro/](http://blog.ghost.org/introducing-ghostpro/)

------
abeh
curious about what happened from current tagline and differentiating point
from wordpress: 'Just a blogging platform.', to the statement here: 'Ghost has
the potential to be far more than just a blogging platform' ?

------
dang
Please don't rewrite titles unless they're linkbait or misleading. ("Ghost
blogging platform, future." wasn't even intelligible.) The post's title, when
combined with the site name, is fine.

~~~
Naushad
Got it.

------
thkim
Ghost promised to be a simple blogging platform. It's simple if you use it as
installed. It's not so straightforward to tweak and upgrade. I'm not very
excited about it anymore.

~~~
coherentpony
They may improve the upgrade process for users. It's also open source, I'm
sure they'd love to hear about your upgrading concerns.

On the other hand, there's also the paid service, which you don't have to
manage at all.

------
JamesBaxter
Does anyone have any recommendations for comment systems on Ghost? It looks
like they themselves are using Disqus and Jeff Atwood is using Discourse
(obviously) are there any other contenders?

~~~
TarpitCarnivore
I saw this one tweeted out yesterday by one of the Ghost devs. Integrated
commenting similar to what Medium does. [http://ouija.io/](http://ouija.io/)

------
barsky
I'm really glad that Ghost is progressing nicely — I've used it for a small
project, and it was a really nice experience.

------
lnanek2
I didn't think another blogging platform was really needed, but their stats
and revenue make it sound successful. Congrats, they succeeded where I didn't
think it could be done, or would have just hosted WordPress and tweaked it if
I was doing it myself.

