Good day everyone! Before the holiday break, I wanted to open another amazing beta for you all.
Introducing Collections with a single item in the Content Manager , a feature that will allow you to connect static site pages and elements to collections.
If you’re looking for a tool that lets your clients manage static page content outside the Editor in a risk-free environment, this is exactly what you need.
Content contributors will get the ability to add and update texts, images, and other content through a convenient form in the Content Manager.
This is awesome, and I’m already adding it to a site I’m building now (and I’m planning on adding it to a few of my client sites). Here’s my initial feedback:
It is easy and simple to set up, although it can be timing consuming when connecting all the content. The way I am doing this is by designing each page and then going back and connecting all the content. Before I connect an element, I have to copy the content, then connect then paste it into the content manager. It would be awesome if (perhaps only the first time) when we connect the content it takes the information from the editor and populates the single item content manger with the stuff from the editor.
The second point is more content manager in general. Currently, anyone can access content and edit it. It would be amazing if we were able to choose the roles that can access each database. Perhaps adding a folder system where we choose which editors can access which folders. This would help so much!
Other than that, this is a great feature and is going to be sooooo helpful for many of my clients!
This might be a bug, or I might have overlooked this completely in the past, but I’ll leave it here just in case.
If I have a piece of text that is linked to another page when connecting it to the content manager, it keeps the link but changes the text.
I don’t remember this happening with the multiple item content manager. (I always thought it removed any links already applied).
If this is meant to happen, then my fault completely. It would be great if we could separate them out so we can choose what the text is and what the link is seperately.
Hello,
Clearly this allows once the model of the site made that the content varies without having to open the editor. Ok that’s cool, but not revolutionary.
What would have been smart is, in particular for each page created from the editor, that a collection is created automatically with Wix, instead of doing it manually by hand (add collection, add that, add this, blabla). Because if the goal is to promote management without breaking the code, then you might as well get it right. For me, each new static pages should have its page in the “content manager” tab and this natively.
And…
Finally, if we really want to go further in the spirit of this functionality, the ideal would be to transform the pages of the Wix templates into dynamic (which is already doable) but above all, it is that EVERY ELEMENT that the page contains can be natively recognized as “fields” in the filling of the database with single item
I agree that this feature isn’t revolutionary, but it does provide a lot more options for us.
It would be pretty cool if this was automated, although, it would probably cause some issues with being able to name the fields and the Velo keys. In addition, we may not want all elements to be connected.
Although, I do agree that to add this to a site it takes a lot of back and forth, especially adding it retrospectively to a site.
@stevenjose I create preview websites for potential clients. At this point in the process they don’t know I use Wix as my platform which leads me to my problem/need:
Preview sites do not display content from databases for my clients. Only if they create a Wix account and are logged in can they see this content. That’s a pretty significant issue for me.
Is it possible to talk to the development team to see if this can be resolved and get back to me?
Hi Noah. The linked text works the same when you connect it to a collection with multiple items - it still contains the link.
But you’re right that it looks like a bug and we should separate them out after the connection to a dataset. Thanks for reporting this issue - we’ll try to fix it asap.
Hi @bestofdenis and @noahlovell ! We’re starting to work on a solution for what you’re describing. If interested, I’d love to hear more about your needs and to loop you in when designing it.
