The only thing I dislike about wordpress.com is that it makes you use the rich text editor. Oh that and they charge for domains, even if they're already registered. In other words, they charge a fee for you to point the domain there. They also charge you if you want to use plugins, or change your theme using HTML in any way.
    I'd stick with the hosted site. That way you can install any plugins and/or custom tweaks you want without paying extra, other than your yearly hosting fee of course.

Hi!

I am wondering about the level of accessibility of 1) putting up a blog on wordpress.com directly versus 2) having Wordpress installed onto a hosted site and blogging their?  To illustrate this difference, in the first case, the URL would be something like “myblog.wordpress.com.”  In the second case, the URL would be something like “myblog.com.”  That URL difference does not, per say, have anything to do with the accessibility of the website as far as using Wordpress to blog.  It just illustrates the difference between the two approaches.  On the one hand, going directly to wordpress.com is free whereas the hosted site would involve some minor fees; but that is not critical here.  The hosted site (e.g., bluehost.com) is professionally managed, is itself decently accessible and has great customer service.  And, the hosted site has “one click” installation of Wordpress scripts and also keeps that installation constantly up to date.  I do like the simplicity of having a clean URL like myblog.com as I would have with the hosted site, though.  So, the central question here is if there is much of an accessibility difference between these two different approaches?

Thanks,

Richard

Hi.

In my experience with Wordpress.com, which is what I use to compose and publish my Web site, I have not been charged any fees for pointing my domains to a Wordpress.com page. I actually own three domains, which all point to my main page on Wordpress.com and I've had no issues in doing this. My domains are registered using Namecheap.

While I don't mind using the rich text editor I know there is also a way to compose using a standard editor with HTML code. These two editors can be changed by selecting the appropriate radio button on the composer screen.

The only thing I dislike about wordpress.com is that it makes you use the rich text editor. Oh that and they charge for domains, even if they're already registered. In other words, they charge a fee for you to point the domain there. They also charge you if you want to use plugins, or change your theme using HTML in any way.

    I'd stick with the hosted site. That way you can install any plugins and/or custom tweaks you want without paying extra, other than your yearly hosting fee of course.

Hi!



I am wondering about the level of accessibility of 1) putting up a blog on
wordpress.com directly versus 2) having Wordpress installed onto a hosted
site and blogging their? To illustrate this difference, in the first case,
the URL would be something like "myblog.wordpress.com." In the second
case,
the URL would be something like "myblog.com." That URL difference does
not,
per say, have anything to do with the accessibility of the website as far
as
using Wordpress to blog. It just illustrates the difference between the
two
approaches. On the one hand, going directly to wordpress.com is free
whereas the hosted site would involve some minor fees; but that is not
critical here. The hosted site (e.g., bluehost.com) is professionally
managed, is itself decently accessible and has great customer service.
And,
the hosted site has "one click" installation of Wordpress scripts and also
keeps that installation constantly up to date. I do like the simplicity of
having a clean URL like myblog.com as I would have with the hosted site,
though. So, the central question here is if there is much of an
accessibility difference between these two different approaches?



Thanks,

Richard