Why the WordPress Block Editor Fails to Delivery for Larger Websites

The block editor was created to address the limitations of the Classic Editor.

The Classic Editor, while functional, had its limitations. It relied heavily on shortcodes, HTML, and custom fields to add and manage content beyond basic text and images. For many users, especially those without coding experience, this created a steep learning curve and often led to a fragmented and frustrating content creation process.

As web design trends evolved, the demand for more dynamic and visually appealing content increased. The Classic Editor struggled to keep pace with the need for rich media integration, complex layouts, and interactive elements. Users often had to rely on third-party plugins or custom coding to achieve the desired look and functionality, leading to inconsistent experiences and potential compatibility issues.

But here's the problem: developers were totally fine with this. They were fine with using ACF (Advanced Custom Fields), and this workflow was great. Our company had an advantage; we could take advantage of all WordPress had to offer with our secret weapon: ACF. With custom fields, we created ways for clients to build layouts based on pre-defined components and sections designed for specific purposes. Nothing was a "free-for-all" like it is now with the Block Editor. We did not have to worry about clients having issues creating their layouts or breaking something. Nothing broke, and we marketed our services as Unbreakable WordPress Themes for a while.

The Block Editor was created to compete with Squarespace and WIX.

WordPress.com introduced the Gutenberg Editor in December 2018 as a strategic move to maintain and enhance its competitive edge in this crowded market.

Squarespace and Wix have gained popularity by offering intuitive, drag-and-drop website builders that cater to users who prefer a simple and seamless experience. These platforms focus on delivering a polished, user-friendly interface that allows anyone, regardless of technical expertise, to create professional-looking websites quickly. Their success highlighted a growing demand for ease of use and visual design flexibility in website building.

While WordPress.com has long been a powerful and flexible platform, its Classic Editor requires users to have a higher level of technical knowledge, particularly for creating complex layouts and integrating rich media. This technical barrier put WordPress.com at a disadvantage compared to the more user-friendly approaches of Squarespace and Wix, making it crucial for WordPress.com to innovate and align with its users' evolving needs and preferences.

While self-hosted WordPress sites may benefit from this advancement, the direction was based on what WordPress.com needed to stay competitive.

Democratizing Web Design

WordPress.com’s mission has always been to democratize publishing and web design. With the Gutenberg Editor, this mission further empowers users to create complex, visually appealing websites without extensive coding knowledge. The block-based system provides a more flexible and powerful way to design web pages, enabling users to achieve professional results with minimal effort.

This democratization does not mean it will fit all websites well. In fact, because of this extreme change in how WordPress operates, many developers are not looking at other platforms to build sites for content-heavy websites.

The Main Problem With the Block Editor in WordPress

The Block Editor, or "Gutenberg" as everyone still calls it, was a response to the builder tools that emerged and competitors to WordPress.com ( the paid version of WordPress hosting), such as Squarespace and Wix, that had builder tools just like this, but these were really for small websites.

The block editor is great for small websites, but for larger sites with dynamic content, relationships, and a need for consistency, it does a poor job because content, layout, and styling are all part of a block; the elements used to build a page. There is no reliable way to maintain consistency. Blocks are also visual and structural representations of code; as such, any complex section can be challenging to manage and edit. Content managers often struggle with basic things like selecting the correct element, setting the properties, and keeping track of the design patterns and rules. It forces content managers to become designers.  While this can be a fun part of the job, it means they are expected to meet the standards of professional designers, and more often than not, this level of expectations becomes a stressful experience after some time.

Challenges of the Block Editor for Large, Content-Heavy Sites

Performance Issues

Large, content-heavy websites often face performance challenges when using the block editor. As the number of blocks and content elements increases, the editor can become sluggish, leading to slower page load times and a less responsive editing experience. This can hinder productivity, especially when managing extensive amounts of content.

Complexity in Content Management

Managing a large volume of content with the block editor can be cumbersome. While the block-based approach is intuitive for simple layouts, it can become unwieldy when dealing with complex content structures and extensive archives. Editors may find it challenging to navigate, organize, and update content efficiently, leading to potential errors and inconsistencies.

Compatibility and Scalability Concerns

As large websites grow, they may encounter compatibility and scalability issues with the block editor. Integrating the editor with custom-built solutions, third-party plugins, and legacy content management systems can be complex and time-consuming. Additionally, the scalability of the block editor may be limited when handling extensive content libraries and high traffic volumes.

Consistency and Standardization

Ensuring consistency and standardization across a large website can be challenging with the block editor. Multiple editors working on different sections of the site may create variations in design and layout, leading to an inconsistent user experience. Maintaining a uniform look and feel across thousands of pages requires rigorous oversight and adherence to design guidelines.