Forum Discussion
SharePoint sites vs. Site Collections - CONFUSED!
So, SharePoint sites vs. Site Collections has completely baffled me despite reading endless articles and watching many videos! As a very advanced end user, with very little admin. experience, I've recently been given the task of sorting out the existing O365 SharePoint sites / hierarchy in my new company *HURRAH*.
However, I'm utterly confused! Here's what I know:
- All sites / sub-sites to date appear to have been setup in a single site collection (https://<mycompany>.sharepoint.com/) - I've checked this via SharePoint Admin Centre and SiteManager.
- All sites setup to previously appear to be 'old-style' team sites with 10 or so directly under the root (https://<mycompany>.sharepoint.com/<site name>/). There are then various levels of sub-site beneath these 10.
- When I go to the Office 365 home page (https://www.office.com/), click the SharePoint tile and then the '+ Create Site' button it unexpectedly appears to create a new Site Collection under https://<mycompany>.sharepoint.com/sites/<site name>/.
- If I go to the SharePoint Admin Centre and create a new site collection, it creates it under https://<mycompany>.sharepoint.com/sites/<site name>/.
So, my questions are:
- When I go to O365 > SharePoint > '+ Create Site', is it creating a SharePoint Site Collection, just a Site or something else entirely (e.g. Site Collection with all the other new Groups functionality thrown in).
- If I'd like to create 3 'buckets' into which all new and existing content could be put, what should I be using (Site collections, Sites, Groups, something else ...)? The buckets I'd like are:
- Operations (for internal employee use only; with 3 subsites (e.g. Finance; HR; Marketing).
- Associates (for use by employees or external consultants who have been provided with an Office 365 account by my company; with no subsites).
- Projects (for sharing project documentation with external clients; with a separate site / subsite for each project).
- If I'd like to restructure all the existing sites (which are currently in a single site collection) so that they are in the 3 'buckets' above how do I best go about this?
- When I'm creating new 'sites', what should I be using?:
- Create Site option on SharePoint homepage.
- New > Site in SiteManager.
- Something else.
I appreciate that this is a lot of questions, but I've done a lot of reading, watching videos and viewing webinars and I'm at a loss!
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! Oz
57 Replies
- Adam ClarkBrass Contributor
There are some great responses, to what has always been a difficult question. Sites vs. Site Collections will depend on the use, the volume of data and security/admin required and there is no one formula that can be applied to give you your result.
However, that being said, here are a couple of things that I look at when I am trying to design a SharePoint site structure:
1. Security - Does this site need security that is different from the rest of the content on your site, if yes consider that a site collection
2. Administration - Are you going to be using different Admins to the rest of the site to look after content, maintain security or metadata as it is different to the rest of the site, if yes, then consider a Site Collection
3. Large Volumes of Content - Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the volume of content that is going to be worked through the site. As you get larger volumes of content, it requires more structure (i.e. sites), more permissions, more governance and metadata. While Office 365 is a great system there are also limits, so if your looking volumes of content say greater than 100gb then consider the use of a site collection over a subsite to help define and maintain your site over the long-term.On the flip side if your using site collections to help separate and govern your site. you need to take into account your navigation, how you're going to maintain metadata or templates between each site or how search will need to be configured. Site Collections bring a lot of advantages to larger sites, but they also need more planning to be successful.
- Paul MartelloBrass Contributor
I am with you! How I understand it though, if you create a site collection via the admin center, you are creating a whole new site collection, where sites can be created. When you go to the Office 365 home page (https://www.office.com/), and create a site, you are creating a site within the existing site collection created by the admin. However, like I stated before, I am a little shaky myself. Someone just created a new teamsite for one of our departments, and it was created under the original root collection.
Hopefully, I made some sense.
Paul
- Sam GilesBrass Contributor
Hello Paul,
Correct, creating sites via the SP Admin centre, creates a Site Collection, and nothing more. This site collection can be viewed via the SP Admin centre.
In my recent experiences, If you create a 'Team Site' via the Sharepoint 'home area' within Office.com, it actually creates a Site as part of a 365 Group, provisioning everything for the group, including a Team Site. However, this Team Site does not appear within the SP Admin centre, and to configure deep-rooted settings, you will need to you Powershell.
If you want to use SP Team Sites, and Team Sites only, create them in the SP Admin Centre.
I hope this helps
- Dean_GrossSilver Contributor
Those new group enabled team sites will show up in the new SP Admin center that is currently rolling out.
Just to clarify, the SP sites are not "part of the group", they are just connected to it (but don't delete the group because that will delete the site also). Depending on how a new Office Group is created, there may be many other apps connected to it, in this case, it is a SPO Site.
- Sam GilesBrass Contributor
Hi Oz,
If i may offer some personal experience which may help.
I have for the past year been installing/developing SPO for my organization.
1) Adding sites/collections from the admin centre for a Top Level site, this gives good foundation for permissions management which is, imo, up there as a top priority.
2) Sharegate (as mentioned by Dean_Gross) is a really good tool, which gives great fluidity to your environment structure. I have ahd to restructure an SP2010 environment as my first SP experience, and Shargate made the job very comfortable. It also supports many forms of reporting and migration.
3) From a 'Sharepoint Freshy' point of view, having a site/project purpose clear (ours is collaboration due to the nature of the business), and sticking to it is crucial. MS provide so many solutions for so many situations.
Finally, i prefer to have a URL structure /sites/region/dept so that there is an order to the chaos. When you create a site via the Sharepoint Tile, its added to the root by default, so unless you are creating a subsite (and then the URL is beneath the upper site), you will need to migrate the site. OR a Top level site is required, from the Admin centre.
New to the forums and advanced dev of SP, but hopefully the above is of some benefit.
- Oz OscroftIron Contributor
Thanks Sam - really useful insights. I think I've come to the conclusion that given the nature of our content (Projects, HR, Finance, Operations, Consultants), they don't actually require a vertical structure and could happily sit as discrete site collections (set up as Groups for collaboration tools etc.). ShareGate seems to be where I end up for any thoughts of moving existing content around, so will probably end up going down that route. I just want to make sure that I've thought all current and future requirements through before I even touch the system!
- Dean_GrossSilver Contributor
One thing that is frequently forgotten is the inevitable organization changes. If you can come up with some vague/generic urls then when the department name changes from Human Resources to Employee Services, you may be able to just change the display title. (some of my clients have cared about urls, others have not)
- Dean_GrossSilver Contributor
An important point to keep in mind is that External Sharing is enabled/disabled at the Site Collection level. For this reason, I typically recommend that new site collections be created for projects that will require collaboration with external organizations. Give that you may want/need to ensure that external partners do not interact with one another, then having separate site collections makes this much easier.
But as the others have stated, it really depends on the specific business/industry/requirements. In your scenario I would expect to create many site collections (possibly one for each project or one for each external partner.
FYI, when you create a new Team (in the Teams app), you will get a new site collection in the tenant.sharepoint.com/teams/.... path. A new Folder will be created in the default Documents library for each channel added to the Team. This site collection will not have external sharing enabled.
- Oz OscroftIron Contributor
Thanks Dean_Gross - more useful information to help me plan the restructure. I think I'm now sorted for projects (i.e. a new site collection (via a Group) for each) and just have to decide for the other bits and pieces. That said, I now understand how it all works much better so it should be an easier task. The only thing that's still unclear I how I physically restructure existing sites / content (i.e. move document / libraries from one site / site collection to another). Thanks again, Oz
- Dean_GrossSilver Contributor
There are several ways to reorg content:
1. use a 3rd party tool, this provides the ability to keep all metadata, schedule jobs, do batches and much more.
2. drag/drop files - easy, but tedious, and it changes the Created/Modified info and it doesn't work if you have existing custom metadata
3. Use workflows to send files from one location to another - typically not practical if you have a lot of existing data, but can work well to help during a tranistion period.
4. If you have Publishing Infrastructure feature enabled, use the Site Contents and Structure tool to rearrange the Site Collection , this won't help across collections.
5. some others that I'm not thinking of at this time:)
I think the best answer is "it depends," but this might help.How to Choose between a Team Site and a Communications Site. Yes, when you see "create site" you are actually creating a new site collection - and this is actually what you want for your collaboration spaces. You will have lots of site collections backed by Office 365 Groups for membership when you create Team Sites. (Using Create Site from SharePoint home is probably the easiest way to do this.) When you create a privae team site, you'll want to be sure to assign someone to be the Owner other than you so that they can add other members to the site, both internal and external people as needed. It looks like your questions are about a combination of "broadcast/publishing sites" and private team sites. For department sites that serve as your intranet, you now have two choices - create a "classic" site collection from the Admin center or create independent modern Communication Sites from SharePoint home. Communication Sites should not really have subsites - though they are not blocked in the UI. However, you will currently need to write some code to create a shared navigation for these independent site collections if you want to connect them to feel like a traditional intranet. If you choose to create department sites using a classic SharePoint site collection at the "root," you can create sub-sites with unique permissions for each department. Most of the time, this type of site collection has read permissions for the entire organization and unique edit/owner privileges for each department.
I'm not sure what to recommend for your Operations and Associates sites since I don't know if you are talking about collaboration spaces or communications spaces, but your Project sites should almost certainly each be modern independent site collections created from SharePoint home. That will allow you the most flexibility and security in terms of governing who can have access to each one.
- Oz OscroftIron Contributor
Thanks SusanHanley - very useful. I think I'm decided that for all our project sites and internal collaboration sites I'll use the +Create Site button in SharePoint home and create a new site collection / Group.
For the Associates 'bucket' I'll probably create a Communications Site although I may want to encourage collaboration between the Associates so may end up creating another standard Group.
For the Operations bucket, I'd like a top-level site with 3 sites underneath, each encouraging collaboration between the relevant people - do you think I'd be better creating 4 standard sites using the +Create Site button and just adding links to the navigation between them, or creating a top-level site and 3 sub-sites? How would this work with regards collaboration - create an assoicated Team for each?
Thanks again and your response has really helped.
- It depends on the objective for each of the 4 sites. Let's assume that the Operations site is for publishing/sharing content by a small number of people for the consumption of a larger group. If that is the case, I would use a Communication Site for that. If the other three sites are about collaboration, they can be team sites. In the Operations Site, you can make links to all three team sites. These are all separate site collections, by the way. In each team site, you can make a link to the Operations Site AND to the "sister" team sites. Within each team site, members of the Team are in the Members Group and the "sister" group folks can be added to the Visitors group if you want them generally to have Read access and if you want to give them edit rights to individual documents, the team members can share Edit links with individuals. There is no right answer to your question, by the way, but I still think I would start with the primary objective for the site: communication (Comm Site) or collaboration (Team Site).
Let me start by asking a question. You asked plenty of questions so I thought I could ask one too ;-)
Why do you care about sites vs site collections?
The general answer here can be:
1. Security (different permissions set from the top of the site collection)
2. Limiting database size ( this is an on premises argument only, As I'm less worried about backups in office 365)
3. Url ( not having to type /sites or /teams)
4. Logical separation
5. Use of site collection limited web parts ( e.g. CQ web part)
If you are now architecting an intranet, I would try and include as many as possible new style sites. So limit yourself to Communication sites (when they become fully available) and team sites with modern SPFx web parts. There are more and more examples available and plenty of consultancies happy to help. I will not mention any here but feel free to contact me.
I agree that all is very confusing and it looks every now and then a bit that Microsoft is offering many differnt options to do almost the same. Making the right choice straight fro the beginning is not always easy.
- Oz OscroftIron Contributor
Thanks Pieter Veenstra - good question! The key reasons I didn't think I wanted lots of site collections were what I've read around:
- Managing security at the top-level and simply letting the inheritence of sub-sites work its way down to the bottom.
- Numerous articles suggest that there are lots of admin settingsset at site collection level which impact sites / sub-sites. I therefore assumed that if we make a decision that requires a setting change, this would be easier the less collections we have.
- With the random structure I've inherited, I'm going to need to do a lot of copying / moving content around. Various articles seem to suggest this is easier within a site collection than between collections.
With the help of you and others, the fog is slowly clearing with regards what structure I should have, but I don't seem to be making any progress on how best to move what we've already got into the new structure when it's created.
Thanks again, Oz