(Migrated weblog post from LSR)
A couple of days ago I wrote an extensive weblog entry on a relatively new weblogging tool that came out some time ago and that people who may be getting started with their own weblog would find it very interesting if they would want to publish content to their weblog with hardly any effort. That tool is Qumana and I thought that after a couple of days trying it out I would share a couple of comments about it and try to make a comparison between Qumana and w.bloggar.
Yes, I do realise that there are plenty of comparisons of them both out there but I just wanted to share with you folks what my take is with regards to each tool as far as 10 key weblogging items that I consider a must and that should be available to any weblogging tool out there.
Notice as well that I am doing this comparison with Qumana and w.bloggar since they are, to my knowledge, the only two freeware weblogging tools for Windows. There are other alternatives for other operating systems or shareware but I have left those out of this comparison. So with all that said here we go:
|Easy to Install & Setup||Yes||Yes|
|Use of Hyperlinks||Yes, (Limited)||Yes|
|Access to Previous Posts||No||Yes|
|Keyboard Shortcuts||Yes, (Limited)||Yes|
So as you can see there may not be far too many differences between one tool and the other as far as some of what I would consider key features are concerned. However, there are a couple of them that actually make me still use w.bloggar over Qumana. Here you have a bit more detailed description on the reasons why.
Indeed, both tools are extremely easy to install and setup. Maybe Qumana is even easier since it can recognise the weblogging engine where your weblog may be sitting as opposed to w.bloggar where this data needs to be provided manually. However, setting your own weblog account with each of them would not take you more than 2 or 3 minutes.
With regards to the usage of Hyperlinks this is actually one of the key items for which I am sticking with w.bloggar. Apparently with Qumana every time you need to insert a hyperlink you need to click on the button or go through the menu, whereas with w.bloggar it is just a single key stroke (Ctrl + L) and off it goes. But it gets better, because if you have used already that hyperlink before it would remember it again and you would only need to key in the first few characters and it will populate the rest.
This, to me, is one of the key items regarding weblogging, that is, the ability to insert links, and as many as you possibly can, so this is a task that needs to be made very easy and accessible and right now w.bloggar beats Qumana big time.
As far as the access to previous posts feature is concerned, this is also one of the items where w.bloggar seems to be much more effective than Qumana. With the first weblogging tool mentioned you are able to retrieve any previous post to make some updates going from the last post, to the last ‘n’ posts or even by the Post ID.
This is a key feature since we are constantly updating weblog posts adding or correcting information in order to make them more accurate. So far, and from what I can see, this kind of updating weblog content by retrieving previous posts is something that I have not seen with Qumana. So a big plus for w.bloggar.
With regards to the feature or ability to preview posts this is something that both weblogging tools offer but I would rather prefer to use w.bloggar than Qumana, more than anything else because I like to see the HTML tags put in place while I am writing so that at the same time I am posting content I am also learning how it is all laid out. The WYSIWYG editor capabilities of Qumana are great for beginners or for folks who may not be quite comfortable with HTML but for all the others I would think w.bloggar would be much better. At least, it fits my needs.
People who know me would tell you I am a keyboard shortcut freak. I am always trying to find out or use shortcuts in order to speed up my typing and also to try to avoid using the mouse as much as I possibly can. And this is one of the reasons why I like w.bloggar. As far as keyboard shortcuts it has got a whole lot more combinations and different options than Qumana. Don’t take me wrong, the latter has got plenty of them available but when you compare them together w.bloggar has got plenty more. And that, to me, is what makes it the killer app.
One of the features I really like about Qumana was its integration with whatever else you would want yourself to get busy with. With the Qumana DropPad you are actually capable of dragging whatever the piece of text, or image directly into it and you can start weblogging about it. This is pretty similar to some of the stuff that w.bloggar does, although I must admit that Qumana‘s user interface is a lot more intuitive. So a big plus in here for that weblogging tool.
Then as far as saving drafts and spell check I am really glad to see that both applications actually offer those capabilities so that we can improve our own weblogging experience and make it as perfect as you would expect.
One of the other items that I actually consider quite important from any weblogging tool is the fact that I can keep the history of what I am weblogging about. So if I am using the same links, or the same piece of text or images I would like to be able to access them at all times. This is something that w.bloggar currently provides, whereas Qumana may not be as effective as you would expect. Also the latter does not seem to clear off that history whenever the weblog post gets posted so it requires an additional step from the weblogger to get rid of the already post text, whereas with w.bloggar it is gone as soon as you post it. That to me is equally important as being able to keep the history as it would allow you to speed up the process of sharing information.
Finally, here we go with one of my favourite features from Qumana and where w.bloggar hasn’t been up to the same level. And that is the option to tag your weblog post to then add those tags into Technorati. This is certainly very beneficial if you would want to get some exposure to your weblog post and from now on I think I am going to steal that idea and use it while posting content with w.bloggar.
So that would be it. I know that this may have been a rather long weblog post but then again I thought I would share with you folks why despite the great options and features that Qumana currently offers I still prefer to use w.bloggar to post content into my weblogs. However, I am not just going to ignore that other weblogging tool but will certainly be watching further on its different developments and see if those key areas where one of my favourite weblogging tools may be better than the other will be ironed out and therefore it may be a good time to revisit Qumana, once again. Will keep you all posted.
Technorati Tags : w.bloggar, Qumana
One thought on “Qumana vs. w.bloggar Comparison”