Why we still build static sites for small publishers

// Editorial team

A small publication with a few dozen articles and a contact page does not need a database, a plugin system or a login page. We build most of them as static files.

Speed

A static page is a file. The server sends it without running code or querying a database, so the first byte arrives quickly even on cheap hosting. With small CSS and little JavaScript, pages render fast on mid-range phones.

Security

There is no admin login to brute-force and no plugin to patch. Abandoned CMS installations are a common way for sites to be taken over and filled with spam. A static site that nobody updates for two years is still the same site.

Hosting cost

Static files run on shared hosting, object storage or a CDN, often at very low cost. Moving hosts means copying a folder.

Longevity

HTML from twenty years ago still opens in a browser. A site built on a framework or CMS version from five years ago often needs upgrading before it will run.

When a CMS is better

If several non-technical editors publish every day, a CMS with drafts, roles and scheduling is worth the overhead. Static sites can use a headless CMS for editing, but that adds a build pipeline. For a team of one or two publishing weekly, editing text files and running a build is usually enough.

Forms without a backend

Contact forms are the usual reason people think they need a server. A form that validates in the browser, or a hosted form service, covers most cases on a small site.