Hello, I was told that static pages are easier than dynamic one with database for the bots to crawl, thus better for SEO. Is this still the case or it is old information ? What is your opinion ? Thanks
True, Optimize Static URL's by using keywords in the URL, this can not (or is harder) to do using Dynamic URLS. Example: Targeted Keyword = Sunshine URL = mydomain.com/sunshine.html title tag = Sunshine - All you need to know about Suushine Description = Sunshine is all you need Keywords = Sunshine, keyword 2, keyword 3 If you have Dynamic URL's use a Site Map to ensure all pages are indexable. In some cases you can use a HTML overwrite or rewrite.
Totally FALSE. Dinamically generated pages CAN have the content you want: simple, complicated, same content as another static HTMLs, different content, etc. And for the URLS, you can use wherever URL you want using APACHE mod rewrite module. You can have a dynamic generated page with that URL used by SunDevil as example: "mydomain.com/sunshine.html"
Hi all what is the better one SEO for a web site static or dynamic i have a lot of questions but first i want to clear it please explain with example thanks Webmaster GlobalGuideLine.com
Like Ajsa says...if you keep it like index.php?topic=44&othervariable=this&subject=somthingelse the search engines can spider it but it will be harder. You can make a simple file called htaccess that reads the requested url and transforms it in static as far as the search engines concerned. It's the same as using permalinks on a wordpress blog. the url of fi a post at doshdosh.com looks like this http://www.doshdosh.com/how-to-make-your-blog-rank-well-in-googles-blog-search-engine/ that is static but in fact it's dynamic because the content is pulled from a database and the real page is something like http://www.doshdosh.com/index.php?p=100 (where p stands for post and the number for the id of the post)
yes i agree that static site are better then dynamic site from seo point of view, bcoz by using htacces you can convert the dynamic url to seo friendly url, but it require other effort.
Dynamic generated pages with quality content is just as good as static html as long as you do as what the what the gods say.
Static URLs are known to be better than Dynamic URLs because of a number of reasons * Static URLs typically Rank better in Search Engines. * Search Engines are known to index the content of dynamic pages a lot slower compared to static pages. * Static URLs are always more friendlier looking to the End Users.
Does not exist dynamic URLs, all URLs are static (even those with arguments). I suppose you're talking about URLs with arguments and URLs without arguments. But if you think all pages without arguments have their content static you're wrong: The content of pages like site.com/keyword/another-keyword.html can be dynamic. Also, the content of pages like site.com/false.php?par1=val1&par2=val2 can be static.
all of the big search engines can follow both version but if you have an option to choose, it's allways better to use static html pages
Lots of questionable advice here....there really is no difference, otherwise sites like Ebay and Amazon would get reduced exposure. Do you really believe multi billion dollar dotcoms would be so nieve? As a matter of fact almost every major site on the web is run with database driven content. This applies to both content and URLs. Good luck
Agreed - Here have a look for example See this http://www.swimmingpoolknowledge.com/hayward/hayward-pool-vac-ultra.html Looks static right - But guess what its dynamic
If you're talking about actual pages - static vs dynamic as in using HTML or a coding language such as PHP, it doesn't matter. PHP is translated into HMTL before being sent to your browser so in the end it's all static. If you're talking about URLs - using a static URL with relevant keywords inserted can have SEO benefit over using a dynamic URL that does not show any relevance to the contents of the page.
As the others have said, it really makes no difference from a search engine's point of view as far as being ABLE to index the content on the page. However, I will add one caveat, and that is as long as you are not using a session ID. Now, I personally prefer using "static" URLs since they're easier for PEOPLE to use and remember, which also has the added benefit of being able to contain relevant keywords that the search engines can use to determine how relevant your pages are when people are looking for information on what your page is about. But this goes back to my old mantra - build Web sites for people, not search engines.
hhmmm, for me its better to have static pages if your site is not that big, i mean they made dynamic sites because they're looking for an easier way to build sites. static and dynamic have they're own advantages and disadvantages. If you're after the SE's its easier if your site is a static one...
static sites are easy to work out.they are using the keyword in the domain name.Dynamic sites are created dynamically,so there is one solution to rewrite the sites.
You guys are forgetting one major advantage that dynamic sites (even if they spit out static URLs, which as I've already said I prefer) have over static ones - they're far easier to maintain and add content to. Just add content and press enter. With a static page, you'd have to create the page, then update your include files (or worse, edit each page by hand) to include the link to the new page. *shudders*