Hanging onto your legacy website may be holding you back from benefitting from local SEO. There is security in familiarity with the same website, but a growing number of businesses are shining a light on the closed-source nature of their website.
A desire to improve your businesses online presence is possibly going to result in a little bit of education between the difference between closed-source and open-source websites. While there are many differences, one key distinction is that open-sourced websites can be changed in many different ways whereas closed-source websites are pre-programmed and cannot so readily be optimised for Search Engines or local directories. Many businesses that want to work with us have websites that are closed-source, such as but not limited to Wix, or SquareSpace. There are many good reasons why businesses would choose a closed-source website. The pre-programmed nature of the software is super convenient, particularly where the software was developed especially for your industry. Every eventuality has been thought through, the functionality is pretty good, updates and good customer service are part of the package, and the visuals tend to be outstanding.
By contrast, an open-source solution means aligning your business with some of the world’s largest content management systems such as WordPress and Joomla!.
Closed-source websites are preprogramed, while open-source websites are unique and your website will be built by a team that includes a project manager, a developer, and a graphic designer. Decisions will need to be made for an open-source website about functionality and appearance, and plugins (additional pieces of software) are added in to allow for customisation, including Search Engine Optimisation.
When it comes to ranking well with Search Engines and local marketing, the problem with closed source websites is the pre-programming does not allow for on-page customisation of the back end, the part that is read by Search Engines. For example, an open-source website can have a heading that is read by people using the website and then a separate meta title and meta description can be written into the backend of the website which then shows up in the local SEO results page. On a closed-source website, the meta data might be pulled from the heading and the first sentence, and the result is either no optimisation because the content is humancentric, or the user experience is poor because the content is geared towards search engines.
This is critical because on-page optimisation is the most important ranking factor for a website to show up in a Search Engine when someone does a local search. Closed-source websites offer low opportunities for technical optimisation. This is the stuff that humans can’t see and what Search Engines use to rate a website. There is a greater risk with closed-source websites that they are not Google and Search Engine compliant and may have code errors which they will be penalised for.
A commitment to your existing website is natural, particularly if you have spent years maintaining and updating it, and have invested heavily in creating content and choosing systems. It’s perhaps timely to point out that a second key distinction between open and closed-source websites is that with a closed-source website your service provider retains ownership of the code for your website. In our view it is a very high risk to make an investment in technology but not to own the intellectual property (IP).
A big advantage to making the change to an open-source website is you eliminate the risk associated with a third party controlling the code. The technology investment in your website is considerable, and an open-source website offers security where a closed-source website does not.
If you are going to change to an open-source web provider, then it’s not a big deal to bring over the content from a closed-source website to a new open-source website. Many of our clients are happy with the current systems contained in their closed-source website, and perhaps offer this as a reason to maintain the status quo. If this is you, then we would encourage you to explore the replacement systems available through open-source plugins. We can talk you through the options and point you towards plugins that offer similar or improved features to what you are currently using. One of the reasons we like open-source so much is because it is the preferred forum for most of the world’s software developers and by definition offers the leading versions of software available.
Risk Analysis
Inherent risk analysis based on proposed OmniHyper® open-source solution vs. general closed-source solutions available.
Risks
TECHNOLOGY protection of your investment.
CONTINUITY of website operations.
DEPENDENCY on the initial service provider.
SEARCH visibility and readability by major Search Engines (e.g. Google).
TAXONOMY of the site and data.
LOGICAL SECURITY and access to data stored.
KEY RESOURCE dependency
Open-Source Solution
- Open-source solutions including Joomla! and WordPress, the world’s largest content management systems.
- Client Retains IP.
- Not restricted to OmniHyper as provider.
- Open-source – millions of developers globally.
- Ease of use with full public documentation.
- Multiple resources available; costs are market related.
- Open-source – Not reliant on OmniHyper®. Can be easily transferred to alternative provider.
- Google and Search Engine compliant.
- Site and content structured in accordance with international standards for data and information storage.
- Multiple authorisation levels and 128-bit secure encryption.
- International security standards/compliance.
- Maintenance through low level computer literacy skills.
- Administration of user accounts and content by non-technical persons/inhouse resource.
Closed-Source Solution
- Internal system with licensed/annual fees to keep updated.
- IP not owned by client; service provider owns code.
- Restricted to single provider.
- Restricted to original developer(s) and third party companies – may be affected by staff continuity.
- Hard to use with limited documentation.
- Single resource dependency with costs dictated by provider.
- Reliant on company’s stability and longevity.
- Cannot be easily transferred to alternative provider.
- (Potentially) NOT Google and Search Engine compliant with code errors giving rise to low ranking within Search Engines.
- Limited to directory structures and definition by site developers.
- Dependant on level of inhouse expertise integration with 3rd party security components.
- Constant redevelopment of security modules.
- Maintenance through technical persons.
- Built by technical people for high-level web users with limited user documentation.
- Limited FAQ/forums.
Risk Analysis
Inherent risk analysis based on proposed OmniHyper® open-source solution vs. general closed-source solutions available.
TECHNOLOGY protection of your investment.
Open-Source Solution
- Open-source solutions including Joomla! and WordPress, the world’s largest content management systems.
- Client Retains IP.
- Not restricted to OmniHyper as provider.
Closed-Source Solution
- Internal system with licensed/annual fees to keep updated.
- IP not owned by client; service provider owns code.
- Restricted to single provider.
CONTINUITY of website operations.
Open-Source Solution
- Open-source – millions of developers globally.
- Ease of use with full public documentation.
- Multiple resources available; costs are market related.
Closed-Source Solution
- Restricted to original developer(s) and third party companies – may be affected by staff continuity.
- Hard to use with limited documentation.
- Single resource dependency with costs dictated by provider.
DEPENDENCY on the initial service provider.
Open-Source Solution
- Open-source – Not reliant on OmniHyper®. Can be easily transferred to alternative provider.
Closed-Source Solution
- Reliant on company’s stability and longevity.
- Cannot be easily transferred to alternative provider.
SEARCH visibility and readability by major Search Engines (e.g. Google).
Open-Source Solution
- Google and Search Engine compliant.
Closed-Source Solution
- (Potentially) NOT Google and Search Engine compliant with code errors giving rise to low ranking within Search Engines.
TAXONOMY of the site and data.
Open-Source Solution
- Site and content structured in accordance with international standards for data and information storage.
Closed-Source Solution
- Limited to directory structures and definition by site developers.
LOGICAL SECURITY and access to data stored.
Open-Source Solution
- Multiple authorisation levels and 128-bit secure encryption.
- International security standards/compliance.
Closed-Source Solution
- Dependant on level of inhouse expertise integration with 3rd party security components.
- Constant redevelopment of security modules.
KEY RESOURCE dependency
Open-Source Solution
- Maintenance through low level computer literacy skills.
- Administration of user accounts and content by non-technical persons/inhouse resource.
Closed-Source Solution
- Maintenance through technical persons.
- Built by technical people for high-level web users with limited user documentation.
- Limited FAQ/forums.
Book a Demo
We get it that you were wanting to have a conversation about exploring ways to invest in local SEO and now unexpectedly it’s been suggested your current website is not fit for purpose. It isn’t an easy concept to swallow, and we propose you book a free demonstration about how HyperZone can work for your business, get in touch with OmniHyper Partnerships Director Nick Hollows nick@omnihyper.com.
We get it that you were wanting to have a conversation about exploring ways to invest in local SEO and now unexpectedly it’s been suggested your current website is not fit for purpose. It isn’t an easy concept to swallow, and we propose you book a free demonstration about how HyperZone can work for your business, get in touch with OmniHyper Partnerships Director Nick Hollows nick@omnihyper.com.