phpWordPress 2.6.0: meta descriptions, template editor, PDF

The thread opens on 26 January 2005 with a list from phpWordPress staff of enhancements in version 2.6.0. There were four items. Generated articles got richer and more descriptive meta description and keywords. The text area for editing templates in the administration area gained syntax highlighting. Articles could be exported as PDF files. A magic_quotes_gpc bug was corrected, which the earlier bug notice had announced.

phpWordPress was a commercial PHP article manager from Spoonlabs, renamed Vivvo in 2006. It was unrelated to WordPress. See the release history for the full sequence of versions.

What did richer meta descriptions mean in 2005?

The staff post says the meta description and keywords for generated articles were “richer and more descriptive”. It does not say how they were built. The archived pricing chart lists “Dynamic generated HTML pages with META tags” as a feature, so the product wrote these tags automatically from article content.

For a publisher with hundreds of articles, that was a time saver, since nobody wrote a tag by hand for each page. The cost was sameness. Auto-generated descriptions tend to read alike, and nothing in the archive shows an editor being able to override them in 2.6.0.

How do search engines treat the meta description now?

Google’s snippet documentation says Google may use the meta description element when it describes the page better than other parts of the content, and that it sometimes uses it if it might give users a more accurate description than text taken from the page. So a good description can help, but it is not a guarantee of what appears in results.

Current CMSs usually give each article a description field, with a fallback generated from the opening text. Look for three things: an editable field per article, a sensible fallback, and a template that outputs it once. The guides cover how to check this when you evaluate a system.

On the keywords tag, the archive shows the product generating it but nothing about its effect. We did not check Google’s guidance on it for this page, so we say nothing further.

What about the template editor and PDF export?

Syntax highlighting in the template editor is a small change that tells you something. Staff expected editors to change templates inside the browser, and wanted to make mistakes easier to spot. The archived features page also flagged PDF export as new. Export to PDF served readers who wanted to print or save an article, which suited the news and article sites the product targeted.

Modern CMSs generally rely on the browser’s print function, a print stylesheet or an extension for this. Check whether a system offers it before you assume it is built in.

Why were 2.6 users told to move to 3.0?

Later posts in the thread concern an upgrade question. On 14 December 2005 staff wrote that all the 2.6.0 updates were contained in the 3.0 package and that there was no separate patch for 2.6 users. They strongly recommended all 2.6 users migrate to 3.0, mainly for security reasons.

For a publisher this is a familiar choice. A vendor stops patching an older line and the only supported route is a major upgrade, which may mean template rework. When comparing CMSs, ask how long each major version gets security fixes. The Product Updates board shows how the same pattern appeared in other threads.