Splitting website/2 sites at one address?

[Elly]

Hi,

I wonder if anyone can help with the following.

Rather than reloading 50 pages each time, could I build another website for
future pages - same design and link it seemlessly with the orginal one? I
upload with Filezilla.

Thank you in anticipation.

 

[Spike]

Elly

--- YES ---
The only qualifier is that you must have links from your 50 page site to
the new future pages. Then the only uploads required will be the modified
future pages. The future pages should either be named other than index.htm
or to keep it clean name them index.htm and place them in different folders
with respective links to each new folder.

Spike

 

[DavidF]

In addition to what Spike said, you could build your 50 page website with 50
different Publisher files if you wanted. The only trick is organizing the
navigation system. Here is an article that might help you visualize a way of
organizing it:
Building a web site with multiple Publisher web publication files:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/16/81264.aspx

Personally, I prefer organizing my site using individual subfolders to
contain each different Publisher file...

DavidF

 

[Elly]

In addition to what Spike said, you could build your 50 page website with 50
different Publisher files if you wanted. The only trick is organizing the
navigation system. Here is an article that might help you visualize a way of
organizing it:
Building a web site with multiple Publisher web publication files:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/16/81264.aspx

Personally, I prefer organizing my site using individual subfolders to
contain each different Publisher file...

DavidF




.
Thank you both very much. Just so I understand correctly: different folders on my computer and then upload to public_html, where all the other files are? If only I had know that I could have done a separate folder for each page, or even groups of pages. I am now slowly going over to another programme - after having had this website in Publisher for about 10 years!

I have always been so impressed and grateful for all the help I have had on
this forum. You are all stars!

However, 'stand by' for the time being, whilst I try to make this work!

Kind regards,

Elly

 

[DavidF]

In the article I referenced David Bartosik said:

"The sub-folder is created by Publisher and named by Publisher according to
the file name you enter during the conversion to web pages. Your home page
needs to be named "index.htm" so from the pub file that contains your Home
page you'll get the index.htm file AND a sub-folder named "index_files". If
you do another pub file, say it's a section for pages on dogs, then you
would name the file "dog" and then the sub-folder will be named "dog_files".
"

He then would upload both the index.htm file, the index_files folder, the
dog.htm file and the dog_files folder to your root directory/folder
public_html.

When I say that I use folders instead I mean that I create a subfolder in
the public_html folder called "dogs" and then don't bother creating dog.htm
and the dog_files folder with the second Publisher file. I just create
another index.htm and index_files folder and upload them to the dogs folder.
For every section I create with a separate Publisher file I create a
subfolder on the server to contain the Publisher web files. This way I don't
have to remember to produce custom named .htm files when I update a section.
And probably more importantly I don't have all those files and subfolders
mixed together in the root directory. It is just easier for me to manage.
Others will find David's approach better. My links are written with the
subfolder in the path: http://www.mydomain.com/dogs/index.htm . With David's
approach the link would be: http://www.mydomain.com/dogs.htm

Clear as mud, eh? I must say that in many cases once a user starts building
a site that exceeds 50 pages then they usually have outgrown Publisher and
move on. The bigger the site, the harder it is to manage with Publisher.
Publisher is best used for small, simple static sites in my opinion...though
there are many of us that have pushed that envelop. Also don't forget that
MSFT is starting to deprecate the web building functionality with Publisher
2010, so if you have started migrating to another program to build your
site, then I would probably encourage you to continue. I have no desire to
"downgrade" to Publisher 2010. I also don't like the new ribbon menu among
other "improvements". I plan to continue to use older versions of Publisher
for web building, but that is not necessarily your best course of action.
Just food for thought...

DavidF

 

[Elly]

In the article I referenced David Bartosik said:

"The sub-folder is created by Publisher and named by Publisher according to
the file name you enter during the conversion to web pages. Your home page
needs to be named "index.htm" so from the pub file that contains your Home
page you'll get the index.htm file AND a sub-folder named "index_files". If
you do another pub file, say it's a section for pages on dogs, then you
would name the file "dog" and then the sub-folder will be named "dog_files".
"

He then would upload both the index.htm file, the index_files folder, the
dog.htm file and the dog_files folder to your root directory/folder
public_html.

When I say that I use folders instead I mean that I create a subfolder in
the public_html folder called "dogs" and then don't bother creating dog.htm
and the dog_files folder with the second Publisher file. I just create
another index.htm and index_files folder and upload them to the dogs folder.
For every section I create with a separate Publisher file I create a
subfolder on the server to contain the Publisher web files. This way I don't
have to remember to produce custom named .htm files when I update a section.
And probably more importantly I don't have all those files and subfolders
mixed together in the root directory. It is just easier for me to manage.
Others will find David's approach better. My links are written with the
subfolder in the path: http://www.mydomain.com/dogs/index.htm . With David's
approach the link would be: http://www.mydomain.com/dogs.htm

Clear as mud, eh? I must say that in many cases once a user starts building
a site that exceeds 50 pages then they usually have outgrown Publisher and
move on. The bigger the site, the harder it is to manage with Publisher.
Publisher is best used for small, simple static sites in my opinion...though
there are many of us that have pushed that envelop. Also don't forget that
MSFT is starting to deprecate the web building functionality with Publisher
2010, so if you have started migrating to another program to build your
site, then I would probably encourage you to continue. I have no desire to
"downgrade" to Publisher 2010. I also don't like the new ribbon menu among
other "improvements". I plan to continue to use older versions of Publisher
for web building, but that is not necessarily your best course of action.
Just food for thought...

DavidF





.
Thank you, Dave