100 votesphilswallow supported this idea ·
An error occurred while saving the commentphilswallow commented
I agree, Raymond. It is surprising to me too that there is no user-accessible backup system - that's really quite scary. WA say they'll restore accounts 'on client request' and it is a 'time-consuming operation (which we currently do not charge for)'. Well, give us the tools and we will do the job!
Coupled with no text search facility for restricted (i.e. members only) pages, an unprotected, slow and clunky file management system for documents and repeated protestations that the development team are very busy, I wonder whether the priorities are right on that wishlist? Also WA might want to analyse that list and check just how many implementation deadlines end up slipping once or twice.
The aspect of WA that sets it apart from other CMS systems is its ability to manage membership details/payments well. However, the website content side of things is far less sophisticated than many competitor CMS offerings, even from Open Source systems like Joomla! and Drupal.
So I wonder whether the priority for now should shift more towards bringing the basic CMS stuff up to speed with other offerings: client manageable backups, search facility, secure file storage are all high on my list - and I appreciate other people will have different priorities and meeting all of them at once is impossible.
Still, this is a commercial product and when you're paying for something, you do expect a different level of response to feature requests from 'we'll put this on the wishlist', the very name of which suggests a low likelihood of it ever being implemented.
I want to like this software and it is beginning to be a strain to do so with the lack of basic CMS features. The continual references to how much work you have to do don't help - we're all busy, guys! :-)