[consulting] Feasibility

Tue Feb 14 18:24:58 UTC 2012

There is zero development involved in setting up CCK, Views, Features, 
Actions, and Triggers, and it is incredibly easy for non-developers to 
build a site 'wrong' using those tools.

It's not just hacking core that causes sites to need rebuilding, it is 
misusing the tool that Drupal provides.

To continue your analogy, yes, a hammer is a tool. It is a simple tool. 
Drupal is an entire construction site, with cranes, backhoes, welders, 
and cement trucks. I wouldn't send an inexperienced client in there 
without a hardhat and a representative OSHA presence.

Which is why I find an anti-pattern in the Drupal marketing. Drupal is 
simple, any one can use it, except when someone points out anyone can't 
use it, then you should have expected to hire an expert from the beginning.

I'm not saying that Drupal should dumb down itself, or even suggesting 
that it change, but I am saying, at this point, it is misleading to 
indicate that a lay person can pick Drupal up and run with it. That is 
an unrealistic expectation.

To be fair, I think d.o doesn't purposefully give that impression, but 
that impression exists, whether through consultants, or inexperienced 
web developers getting in over their head. The evidence is in the 
aforementioned sentiments about 'expecting a site to be built 
incorrectly' and in my own experience of 2-3 out of every 4 clients 
coming to me with a product that they or another vendor has built poorly 
in the first place.

Am I incorrect in thinking crappily built sites are endemic to Drupal? 
Is this just the learning curve, or some broader issue that gives 
clients and vendors the impression that Drupal is a drop-in or 
set-it-and-forget-it solution?

Regards,
   Sam Tresler

On 02/14/2012 12:47 PM, Joel Willers wrote:
> I tend to think of Drupal as a tool, not a product. A hammer is a tool when used correctly builds useful things, and, when used incorrectly it can also be useful, just not in a way that is easily duplicated. When people hack core, it's impossible to upgrade easily. I've heard over and over again how you shouldn't hack core, but people do it. What's the cure for that? It isn't a negative for Drupal. It's a positive for Drupal developers. Yes, there is a learning curve. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for developers. If you want a product to use, they exist. If you want a tool that aids in building a nice site with an extensible CMS, Drupal is for you.
>
> Just remember, all tools are not used the same by different users. That doesn't make the tool any less useful.
>
> Joel
>
> From: consulting-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:consulting-bounces at drupal.org] On Behalf Of Keith Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:39 AM
> To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers
> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
>
> I've been learning and configuring Drupal for a couple of websites that I want to put online.  I find your observation to be very interesting.  One of my concerns is the amount of time it might take me to maintain multiple Drupal installs.  And with such limited knowledge of Drupal I question if I am configuring things correctly.
>
> I still think Drupal is a great tool.  I also think one has to either become an expert or hire an expert.
>
> Keith
> ------------------------
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
> From: Sam Tresler<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
> Date: Tue, February 14, 2012 10:27 am
> To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers
> <consulting at drupal.org>
>
> Honestly, this is becoming one of my sole biggest issues with Drupal. We
> can talk about the learning curve being steep, and rewards being
> plentiful all we want. However, when the automatic assumption is that
> the site was built wrong in the first place, and (I would hazard the
> guess) the majority of sites being built un-upgradable, then I have a
> very difficult time recommending it as a good platform to build upon.
>
> Sure, you can build amazing things on Drupal. But if only a marginally
> slim category of rock star developers is doing it in a sustainable
> fashion, then what is the point?
>
> More and more when I find myself in a situation where upgrade is
> impossible due poor original build, I step back and re-assess the
> client's needs out of a CMS and see if the complexity of Drupal is
> something that will ever be in their wheelhouse.
>
> I'm aware that sounds incredibly negative, but there are only so many
> "Drupal Disasters" that I can see without getting some negative
> attitude. Although, I do maintain Drupal has an easy upgrade path when
> executed properly.
>
> Regards,
> Sam Tresler
>
> On 02/14/2012 07:59 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
>>
>> ----- "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
>>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:52:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
>>>
>>> I have found myself in a the middle of an upgrade where I thought it
>>> might be easier to rebuild, but only when it was built incorrectly in
>>>
>>
>> That is an excellent point. We rarely have people come to us with an upgrade were the site is very well built. (I am going to generalize). Typically people come to us unsatisfied with the past performance of their existing developer. When we look under the hood we see why. I guess I just assume it isn't going to be well built.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
>>>>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
>>> providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:26:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
>>> Eastern
>>>>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
>>>>>
>>>>> " Part of providing value as a consultant is knowing when we
>>> should
>>>>> and
>>>>> when we shouldn't do something for a customer unless they say we
>>> don't
>>>>>
>>>>> care do it our way."
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. And as a consultant we probably shouldn't be making blanket
>>>>> recommendations without assessing the actual situation first.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right that is why I said "points well taken." I was simply offering
>>> my opinion and thoughts to see what others were.
>>>>
>>>>> In my experience it is a rare site that actually needs a rebuild.
>>> Why
>>>>>
>>>>> would we bother with an upgrade path at all if that weren't the
>>> case?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking specifically to third party modules that don't upgrade
>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>> These instances stand out in our mind because that's A) usually
>>> when
>>>>> they call the consultants in, and B) They're a giant PITA. But as
>>> far
>>>>> as
>>>>> 'always being more cost effective to rebuild' I think that is very
>>> far
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are paraphrasing me. I didn't say always.
>>>>
>>>>> off the mark. And not a good or true impression to leave a client
>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So have you ever found yourself in the middle of a complicated
>>> upgrade were you thought, huh, might have been better to just start
>>> from scratch?
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Sam Tresler
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/13/2012 11:21 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> Points well taken. What ruler do we use to decide quickly if it
>>> is
>>>>> a simple site that is could be upgraded easily? Sort of doing the
>>>>> upgrade to see if it works. For example are you using CCK and
>>> views?
>>>>> If so then no it isn't worth it? Or how much content do you have?
>>>>> Part of providing value as a consultant is knowing when we should
>>> and
>>>>> when we shouldn't do something for a customer unless they say we
>>> don't
>>>>> care do it our way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Sam Tresler"<sam at treslerdesigns.com>
>>>>>>> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
>>>>> providers"<consulting at drupal.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: "Christian Pearce"<pearcec at xforty.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:08:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
>>>>> Eastern
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [consulting] Feasibility
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure I agree with this. It depends on what/how the site
>>>>> was
>>>>>>> built originally. I've upgraded simple sites along that path (5
>>> to
>>>>> 6,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then 6 to 7) in less than a day. More complex sites or sites
>>> that
>>>>>>> weren't built properly in the first place, the assertion that
>>>>> rebuilt
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> cheaper may be true. I don't think this is a blanket statement
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can say until we know more details about the site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upgrading themes is fairly simple if you follow the well
>>> published
>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>> by step guides.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess my main point is "Upgrades are never smooth" is not the
>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frequently they are, and when they aren't it's generally due to
>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>> that need to be fixed regardless of the upgrade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Sam Tresler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/13/2012 10:45 AM, Christian Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>>> (Please don't turn this thread into garbage. Which tends to
>>>>> happen
>>>>>>> from time to time.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Amy, I don't want this to necessarily be about you or turn
>>> you
>>>>>>> off from our list. So please accept my advanced apologizes if
>>> it
>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wanted to get people's thoughts on upgrade versus rebuild
>>> from
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> cost perspective. Seems to me going from 5 ->  7 would
>>> require
>>>>> going
>>>>>>> to 6 first. Upgrades are never smooth. Having to go from 5 ->
>>> 6
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the 6 ->  7 would be effectively paying for 2 upgrades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are the pro's of upgrading?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Site content comes along for the ride.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are the con's?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. More expensive then a rebuild
>>>>>>>> 2. Might be forced to redo functionality
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems to me in either case you need to upgrade the theme to
>>> work
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> 7. And you are more then likely finding replacement modules for
>>>>>>> existing functionality. So if you are already forced to redo
>>>>>>> functionality, might as well put the money towards a refresh.
>>>>> Further
>>>>>>> I would venture to say on small sites it would be more worth
>>> while
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> redo functionality and redo the content by hand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please lets have a healthy, no flame, honest and open opinions
>>>>>>> discussion. Also please don't talk ill of Amy's request. I am
>>>>> sure
>>>>>>> several non-profits are in her shoes. And I would suspect budget
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> limited. Hence my reason for bringing it up. What is going to
>>> be
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> most cost effect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- "Weinstein Amy"<amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Weinstein Amy"<amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org>
>>>>>>>>> To: consulting at drupal.org
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:46:58 AM GMT -05:00
>>> US/Canada
>>>>>>> Eastern
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [consulting] Please post this job listing on the
>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>> list...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Freelance job opportunity with small non-profit (501c3)
>>>>>>> organization
>>>>>>>>> dedicated to funding children's brain tumor research.
>>>>> Experience
>>>>>>>>> required includes Drupal 5, 6 and 7. HTML, SQL, PHP.
>>> Position
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> part time and would require upgrade of existing website from
>>>>> Drupal
>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>>>> to Drupal 7. Also, transfer of site from existing host to
>>>>> Drupal
>>>>>>>>> Gardens. After upgrade is complete, ongoing maintenance (10
>>>>>>>>> hours/week) would be welcomed. Please respond ASAP to
>>>>>>>>> amy at achildrensbraintumorcure.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>>>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> consulting mailing list
>>>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> consulting mailing list
>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting