Why do people hate Sharepoint

Why does everyone hate SharePoint? [closed]


When reading this topic on the most hyped technologies, I noticed that SharePoint is vilified almost everywhere.

My experience with SharePoint (especially the latest versions) is that it intelligently fulfills its core competencies. Namely:

  • Central document repository - Retrieves all of these Office documents via email (with version control)
  • User editable content creation for internal dissemination of information - Look, an HR site with updated phone numbers and vacation guidelines
  • Project collaboration - With a few clicks of the mouse, a website is created with a project's documents, a to-do list, a simple schedule, a discussion board and possibly a list of all project-related emails.
  • Very simple business automation - When you fill out the vacation form, an email will be sent to HR.

In my experience, SharePoint only gets really ugly when an organization tries to steer it in a direction it wasn't designed for. SharePoint is not a CRM, ERP, bug database or external website. SharePoint is flexible enough to serve in an emergency, but does not replace a special tool. (Microsoft is equally guilty of moving SharePoint into domains that it doesn't belong to.)

When you use SharePoint for what it was designed to do, it really works.

Thoughts?






Reply:


I think it can be summed up in a comment I once heard about VB. "It makes the simple things very easy and the hard things impossible."






There are many reasons not to like SharePoint.

  1. It does not work with Firefox or Chrome . It works somehow but it doesn't really work. The same applies to Outlook compared to other email clients.
  2. It cannot be determined whether websites are lists, document libraries, or something else. As a result, the Navigation very messy , and if you make the wrong choices when setting up sites, you're done.
  3. The Page editor is SUPER clunky and interactive.
  4. It is one Straitjacket . If you want to do what it wants, it might be fine - IF you can find out what SharePoint calls it. If you need to do something else, paddle tight with a strainer.
  5. The Version system is so bad that it's just technically can be viewed as a version system.
  6. It is ugly . It has no style. The screens just look bright, blocky and unfriendly. The effect should not be underestimated. Although this is adaptable, it means a considerable amount of additional work.






My biggest problem with Sharepoint is more fundamental. I think it tries wrong problem to solve .

Many companies that use it have been very high users of paper, forms for it, documents for it, and so on. Then computers came along so they created Word documents instead. An improvement, but very quickly things started to get chaotic again and Sharepoint came to the aid of managing documents ...

well that's it ... why so many documents at the beginning ...

Forms can be converted into an intranet form that supplies a database directly. Instead, I have to fill out an excel sheet, print it out, have someone sign it, have someone sign it, then take the printed document and manually re-enter it to keep track of the information ... all of these tasks, including signing, can be done with Intranet forms and digital signature created to increase efficiency.

Another example in which a short document explains how to work around a known bug in a product that has not been fixed for a while. Quickly typing a phrase into the associated wiki page seems like a natural option. But too often I see someone start a word, write two or three lines and save the document in a dark corner of the SharePoint site and then knock back on it with the eternal "but it is documented". I've seen this come to the point where such documents are often viewed as proper troubleshooting !!

In conclusion, I think Sharepoint can just enforce these bad habits and, over time, create a monster that was far worse than it should have been tamed. With a wiki, few well-placed forms, and a well-designed intranet, I expect the need to use a word processor or spreadsheet to become nearly nil. Since this is what Sharepoint is good for, well, if you get your stuff right, it's good for nothing.

In my opinion there are two possible scenarios in which Sharepoint will be installed:

1 - Because it's free with MSDN Subscription / Gold Affiliate / Christmas Gift

or

2 - Because it is not the person who pays for it who will eventually use it.





I think you answered that when you said

In my experience, SharePoint only gets really ugly when an organization tries to steer it in a direction it wasn't designed for

Organizations seem more likely to expect this to be a magic bullet that will quickly reduce their developers' workforce. And of course it gets very frustrating when you try that. I agree, if you stay within the designated domain it works fine.

By the way, this is not only the case in SharePoint. This happens to many, if not all, of the packages sold. Apparently it is very difficult for customers to stick to the product.










"Enterprise Roach Motel for Word Files" sums it up best. It is often used as a data dump rather than a designated communications hub. In contrast to a wiki solution, it is often set up with restrictive permissions instead of more extensive user training (which is very important). And if you lock out the people who are actually interested in the organization, that is some guarantee of failure. And on top of that, it's a nightmare for IT support (this is the angle from which I saw it).



It is extremely difficult to take unusual actions in SharePoint. Even basic tasks like automatically serving pages can require knowledge of Visual Studio, Powershell, Powershell scripts, XML, and so on. The developers are as good as the only ones who can do this in an organization.

Here is my problem with SharePoint - creating SharePoint features is not an evolution. It's administration. A web administrator should be able to create most things with SharePoint, but it's so overly complicated that web administrators can't. For a developer, web administration is mind-boggling boring .

SharePoint is easy difficult and boring .




Who is SharePoint being sold to?

SharePoint is sold to business people who don't know how to view something as a "solution to a problem". You take SharePoint and toss it against the wall, hoping it sticks. Then it's those who drive the organization and functional sets into a pond that is stuck forever.

This metaphorical pond is a technical debt that people cannot recover from and only affects the software maintenance organization by asking them to ineffectively throw more money on it and hope for an upgrade that they haven't yet once drifts into a dirtier pond.


There is no substitute for organization. There is no substitute for discipline. When you have them, you hardly need SharePoint. Otherwise, Sharepoint won't be able to save you.


The main reason I hate it is because it's designed so terribly. It is a huge configuration animal made up of opaque abstractions layer by layer. It seems more like an attempt to generate new revenue for old technology than a serious attempt to find an adequate solution. Frontpage, XML, web forms, CAML, MS Office, InfoPath, XML, XML, HTML-Mist, more Frontpage.

What year is it Simply base your content types on the actual table definitions. Make it easy and work like any modern CMS. Microsoft is totally excited about innovation. Unfortunately, they still own the company space.


Out of the box features are great. Once you start "manipulating" the out-of-the-box functions to do what you need, things get tricky quickly.

As mentioned above, it should only be used for what it was designed for. This is a problem, however, because managers feel that the developer can handle the things SharePoint was not designed to do, so they spend hours or days looking for solutions.

If a company wants to use SharePoint, should it can be fully researched. They often don't and all the features they need are placed on the developer.

If you use SharePoint for what it was designed to do, it really works . I wish the company I worked for would use SharePoint it was designed for and didn't want to add as many "features" to it.



The two biggest problems I have with Sharepoint:

  • Out-of-the-box features work, but aren't enough to justify the price.
  • Management believes that everything is Sharepoint's domain. So when you request a server to host a bug database, you get an "Oh, use Sharepoint for this" message. They even dared to suggest the shared files feature as a version control system for code. (It didn't take long to convince him he was wrong).

There are also a number of minor issues that seem to slip under most people's radar, so this isn't just the case with Sharepoint. One example is accessibility. Another being is navigation.

Compare this to a JIRA / Confluence / Subversion setup. You get the right tools for most of what you need to do, a better integration story, and a few other perks for less money overall. These products integrate very well with a few other things (including Sharepoint). This configuration isn't perfect either, but I've had better experiences with it than with Sharepoint.

The only feature I thought was "cool" was editing remote content in MS Office. Everything after that was a pain.





You first mention over-hype. Then you have submitted this comment.

If you use SharePoint for what it was designed to do, it really works.

I think you answered your own question. The aversion to SharePoint stems from the fact that SharePoint is usually sold / hyped because it can do more than it is.

That doesn't mean something is wrong, it just isn't being marketed properly.





Costs. Try a high-performance cluster with two servers that you can access from the Internet. That is why people are looking for alternatives

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our website, to show you personalized content and targeted ads, to analyze our website traffic, and to understand where our visitors are coming from.

By continuing, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies and affirm you're at least 16 years old or have consent from a parent or guardian.

You can read details in our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.