Poll: Pligg Eligable or Not For Packt Most Promising CMS Award?

After writing our article on Pligg winning third place in the “Most Promising” category of Packt Publishing’s CMS awards we received several emails and messages from readers alerting us to the fact that Pligg may not have been eligible for this particular award. The entry criteria from Packt own rules depending on how they are interpreted could indicate that Pligg is in fact not eligible to be entered into the “Most Promising” CMS category.

Firstly lets address the question as to why some thought that Pligg may not be eligible for the “Most Promising” category? Each year Packt sets particular entry requirements for systems with their Awards Rules for each category and this is where several of you picked up on a possible detail that could make pligg uneligable for the award. The particular rule in question is no.6 in the “Most Promising” rules section as shown below.

From Packt 2009 Award Rules Link to rules at bottom of Packt’s awards page.

6. The most promising category is open for Open Source Content Management Systems whose first release was under two years ago as of August 3, 2009. CMSes that entered the 2008 Most Promising category, that are still eligible for 2009 are invited to enter.

A few readers pointed out to us that what could be considered a stable and widely used version of Pligg titled v9.9.5 was released on the 29th April 2007, this date is four months in front of Packt’s entry rule criteria. Those same readers also hinted that the use of the BETA tag on Pligg’s releases had been overused and the system had been stable and usable since v9.9.5, therefore v1.0.0 was not the first stable release and the project did not now meet Packt’s entry requirements.

More so even if Pligg had entered the “Most Promising” category for 2008 it’s release date still does not allow it to be entered for 2009. The fact Pligg had also been selling paid Modules and Templates from their own Pligg Pro store since around 2007 also seemed to confirm that the system was indeed stable enough for the developers to commercialize since this time.

A List of Pligg Versions and Release Dates

We contacted Packt to get their view on the subject and received the explanation below.

The Most Promising category is, for obvious reasons, the most difficult one to administer as its very difficult to say for certain when the first stable release of a CMS is, just from viewing the project’s website and other research. With this in mind, we contact all CMSes that make the final to establish this date of their first stable release.

We agree with Packt on this one that the first stable release should be when the entry date requirement begins, this is where things are hazy with Pligg though after being developed for nearly three years.

Our Opinion

We feel Pligg should have been included in the awards and if taking the release date of v1.0.0 as the stable release they are entitled to enter. We do however see the point made by some of you that Pligg may have overused/misused the BETA tag over the years on their releases as versions including v9.9.5 previous to v1.0.0 were definitely stable enough to run some fairly large sites. Stability hasn’t really been Pliggs problem since the release of v9.9.5, users main gripe with the system over time has always been spam submissions.

Whats your view, is Pligg eligible or not?

Does Pligg Meet The Entry Criteria For Packt's Most Promising CMS Award

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Article Details


Author: Lincoln on November 30th, 2009

Category: Pligg

Tags: ,

  1. Rafher says:

    Pligg 1.0 was released on 6-16-2009
    Could your hatred towards Pligg be because you tried to put out a fork and it sucked?

  2. Jakub Holásek says:

    Critism is good. But Pligg is STILL very good Social Bookmarking CMS. With skilled developer there is no problem to customize own Pligg site to specific needs (including more antispam power).
    As a matter of fact it seems Lincoln attempts to throw mud at Pligg as much as possible, playing up negatives only..

  3. Lincoln says:

    Hey guys,

    As you will see if you actually bothered to read and understand the article I agree that Pligg SHOULD have been included, so whats you complaint here as their doesn’t seem to be one? Also on the matter of SWCMS the so called fork that we tried to put out that’s also incorrect, Social Web CMS was a project started by Pliggs original developer AshDigg that we contributed some code to, we didn’t start the project or own any part of it we simply contributed to it as we do with a lot of open source CMS systems. ;)

  4. Geoserv says:

    I also voted “Yes”, up until version 1.0, Pligg has always used the beta word and always said that 1.0 would be the first “stable” version.

    Gotta love when people comment on blogs without even reading the posts.

    For some reason, even when you say something good about Pligg, people still get defensive.

    As far as SWCMS, I too can vouch that Ashdigg actually started that, much like he coded the majority of Pligg, people submitting code or helping other developers is typically a good thing, but only other developers would understand that.

    @Jakub Holásek, nice to see around my friend, hope all is well.

  5. Rafher says:


    You might want to review your own website. You are again caught in another lie.

    You personally released a fork of Pligg called YADC.

    It failed. We know it, your readers know it. Just you don’t know it.

    You took it personally. Spent 2 years of your life trying to make Pligg look bad. Just look at your blog. You are a disgrace to the open source community

    Still after a few years you are still Anti-Pligg.

    Your readers feel sorry for you.

    Maybe you should google open source doucebag.

  6. Lincoln says:

    Hey Rafher,

    Lie is a strong word to use and completely inaccurate, sure we have caused some controversy but all our articles are researched before publication, unlike your comments it would seem.

    YADC (Yet Another Digg Clone) was in fact the first release by AshDigg Pligg’s original Developer which then went on to become Social Web CMS ;) Ash released YADC to the community which solved all the security vulnerabilities in v9.9.0 of pligg which pligg users were screaming out for a fix, more so to keep the pligg project going at the time Pligg’s owners actually lifted a lot of Ash’s fixes form YADC/SWCMS and pasted them into their own SVN release of pligg. Taking the code Ash had done for YADC is what actually allowed pligg to release v9.9.5 of their system to the public ;)


    Below is a quote from the release article we wrote after AshDigg contatcted us about YADC where you will see the facts.


    YADC is a fork of the popular Pligg CMS System and has been developed by Pligg’s former lead developer AshDigg.

    If we are anything here at social cms buzz we are not lairs and are considered the saviors for Pligg. :)

    It’s true that our articles actually kick started pligg development again after v9.0.0 being dormant for around eight months since Ash originally decided to leave the pligg project.

    So again YADC which is SWCMS is not and never was out project, hopefully this explanation will help to clear up the inaccuracies in your comments for you ;)

    As for SWCMS failing well you obviously don’t keep up to date or have no real interest in keeping abreast of developments on Open Source Social Systems within the community other than trolling/baiting comments to post crude inaccurate replies, http://forums.socialwebcms.com/index.php?topic=882.0.

Leave a Reply