We just uploaded a new tool to our website for comparing content management systems. Using our comparison tool, you can see market data for multiple content management systems side-by-side. For example, here's a comparison of the two most popular systems: Wordpress and Joomla.

We've been seeing an increase in submitted detection methods recently.

First of all, THANK YOU! Your submissions are extremely helpful to us. They help us expand our detection coverage and help us figure out where our detections are off the mark.

Secondly, we just wanted to mention that with the increase in submissions, we've fallen a little behind.  We'll be doubling down our efforts to verify and add the new detection methods and we'll hopefully be caught up here soon.

Thanks for helping us become the best possible CMS detection service.

 

It's very common for web pages to have errors in their markup. For the most part, these errors go completely unnoticed and our detection algorithm doesn't skip a beat. However, during some testing we ran today, we noticed one detection method was misbehaving for a particular url. Upon further inspection, we found that a small error in the page's markup was at the root of the problem. Once we found the cause of the problem, coding the fix was a breeze.

We now have a simple API wrapper available for PHP developers. The project is hosted on Github and easily installed using Composer.

We're always looking for ways to improve our detection methods, and we feel pretty good about the current quality. Well, we felt pretty good until we came across this article on devnet.kentico.com. It's not bad news, we tied for first with two other detectors.

The author, Petr Svihlik, tested ten different CMS detectors on "well-known websites running on almost 20 different CMSes". His tests found that our detection rate, along with the other two top detectors, was 84%. It's a respectable number, but as a perfectionist, I'd like to see it higher and I'd really like to know where our detector missed a CMS.

So, I reached out to Petr, and even though he's out of the office right now, a coworker of his has responded with the assurance that Petr will get back to me. So cross your fingers! Hopefully we'll have some answers to how our detector missed some CMSes and some solid data for improving our algorithms!

When we introduced API access a few weeks ago, we knew the initial limitations wouldn't work for everyone. Yesterday, we put the finishing touches on our expanded API access. We now have four plans that provide different levels of access to our detection algorithms and hopefully better fit the needs of our users. You can view and select from our four plans here: whatcms.org/Subscriptions

Just a quick update here but wanted to mention that everything here at WhatCMS.org is going great.

Traffic to the site has been increasing week after week. We're not only seeing increased live users, we're also seeing significant growth of our API (users and requests). Speaking of the API, we'll be rolling out some additional options, hopefully in the next couple of days.

Checked the site this morning to find a bug had thrown our detection system offline. The bug has been fixed and detections working again.

API development is going fast and we have the initial release ready for users. Check it out for details on how to sign up and query our server.