Since this is basically a reference book you'll be creating, perhaps the best CMS for this might be a
Wiki.
Wikis use a reference book or catalog metaphor; allow for customization while still providing a recognizable format for most people to navigate; allow you to embed links to anything (blogs, email addresses, software, downloads, images, media, etc.); and, once set up, are very easy to use - and most importantly -
maintain.
Best of all, you won't need to reinvent the wheel. Wikipedia has a very good summary box for software that could easily be copied.
Example1.
Example2.
Even more important, they've worked out the
taxonomies.
Link here.
Coming up with good categories and subcategories is the most difficult task you'll encounter when creating a reference directory. So whenever possible,
steal a good one from somebody else, and modify it as needed.
Running the category main links down the left column (ala Softpedia and many others) is a terrific help for users. Try to do that if possible.
Most people don't think of wikis for a
curated directory because they keep thinking in terms of everybody being given write/edit access. It doesn't have to be that way. You can restrict feature access however you like with most wikis.
We set one up for a client that has an extensive library of documents, media, and software assets that they wanted to provide their employees with ready access to. There was a ton of good stuff in there. But nobody knew half of it existed, let alone how to get to it.
After looking at several CMS and 'document management' products, we went to
WikiMatrix, ran through their
choice wizard and got these recommendations:
3F Wiki, bitweaver, BusinessWiki, Clearspace, codeBeamer, Confluence, Corendal Wiki, Daisy, Drupal Wiki, GeniusWiki, IkeWiki, iKnow - a tiny wiki, Incentive, JSPWiki, Luminotes, MediaWiki, Midgard Wiki, MindTouch, MojoMojo, PAUX, PhpWiki, ProjectForum, SamePage, SharePoint Wiki Plus, ThoughtFarmer, Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware, Traction TeamPage, WackoWiki, Wagn, WikiDoc, WikkaWiki, XoWiki, XWiki and Zwiki
In the end, we didn't need to do a lot of comparative studies. One of the company's employees already had extensive experience setting up and managing MediaWiki. Since they had in-house expertise to fall back on, and it was already on our short list, we thought it best to go with MediaWiki. It was installed, populated in relatively short order, and became a "big win" for everyone involved. The employees love it. And in the true tradition of wiki-thinking, it continues to improve incrementally through subsequent additions, edits, and updates. So what was once "90% right" is closer to "99.9% right" now that the company has grown into it.
Note: MediaWiki might not be the absolute best choice we could have made. But it was definitely a good choice for them. That's something to keep in mind when doing a platform search. Don't let the natural desire to find the absolute best solution keep you from implementing a good solution. My software selection rule is: Something that's 85% right and working - is preferable to something that's 100% right and perpetually in planning.
Rule of Thumb: Apply the finishing polish as it goes out the door, not as it comes into the shop.
Recent Posts
Can always tell... Apply for a moderator job if desire sticks. Piracy is typically an invitation for eager moderator wannabies people to react, old, weak and basically BS though there are people like zridling around who can ask WFT are you talking about?, standing up for ones word is a admirable feature - most fail and come off as hypocritical if they try, I estimate 95% hitrate when topic is piracy including every member on this domain
