Static .html or dynamic content ?

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by ActiveFrost, Apr 26, 2009.

  1. #1
    This question drives me crazy in the meaning that I can't find the answer.
    There should be difference between static html files and dynamically generated ones, so - what do you prefer and why ( please note that I'm not looking for answers like "it's just easier to use this or that" ) ?

    Thanks, AF.
     
    ActiveFrost, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  2. praetserge

    praetserge Notable Member

    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    48
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    210
    #2
    what do you mean by dynamic, you have to be more specific.
    As I have most of the content which is static but most of the tables I have dynamic.
    Overall, SE's prefer static ones as it's easier to monitor them
     
    praetserge, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  3. Canonical

    Canonical Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    141
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #3
    Search engines could care less really whether your content is generated dynamically using server side scripting languages like Active Server Pages, .NET, PhP, etc. with/without a CMS or are rendered using static HTML files. They simply crawl and index the HTML documents they find at the target URL regardless of the file extension. End of story.

    If I generate HTML using .ASP or .PhP files by pulling it from a DB or CMS system or simply place the identical hardcoded HTML in a .html file... the engines see the same thing... the HTML.

    Using a CMS to manage the content and some server-side scripting language to dynamically render your content in an HTML formatted document DOES however provide lots of added benefits. These benefits add value from a site maintenance perspective.

    It's nice that a user can change the content on the site without having to have knowledge of HTML or Active Server Pages, PhP, and other scripting languages. It's nice that the person in charge of SEO is able to change things like <title>, <h1>, <h2> elements, the actual content of the pages, etc. via a UI rather than by changing code.
     
    Canonical, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  4. eyeglassesadvisor

    eyeglassesadvisor Peon

    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    You shoud use static .html, if you use dynamic software, such as wordpress, drupal, you'd better use plugin to show static pages.
     
    eyeglassesadvisor, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  5. retsek

    retsek Peon

    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Using a CMS is just easier. I always convert any sites i acquire to Wordpress. It's just easier. (You can even use Wordpress MU with a single hosting account, so don't have to manage like 50 installations of wordpress).

    With the permalinks feature, your wordpress can have .html in the urls if you want.
     
    retsek, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  6. ahref

    ahref Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    67
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    170
    #6
    I think OP is asking for dynamic URL with ? and =, generally dynamic URL are not preferred for SEO purpose, search engine always see html of page and probably does not know whether page is generated dynamically or static.
     
    ahref, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  7. Canonical

    Canonical Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    141
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #7
    Dynamic URLs can be either SEO friendly or non-SEO friendly... But at Google, it generally doesn't effect your rankings.

    Back in the day, dynamic sites typically had URLs with lots of query string parameters like www.example.com/index.php?cat=123&subcat=456&prod=789&sort=6. Some search engines in the past would basically ignore everything after the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd query string parameter basically truncating your URLs. This led to issues since multiple URLs could have their content indexed under the same truncated URL.

    This is not typically the case any more. Google will typically index the entire URL even if their are many query string parameters. Most other search engines have gotten much better about this as well. As long as you don't have multiple pages that are competing for the same truncated URL, it's not THAT big of a problem to use these SEO unfriendly URLs. You are not getting the advantage of using keyword rich URLs, but this is a minor ranking factor and does not have huge effects on your rankings.

    However, there is really no need for using SEO unfriendly URLs anymore even on dynamic sites. You can implement keyword rich SEO friendly URLs for almost any dynamic site now. Most CMSs support SEO friendly URLs out of the box.

    If they do not then you can implement them yourself using Mod Rewrite/ISAPI Rewrite to implement 301 redirects from the unfriendly URL to an SEO friendly URL... and then to rewrite the SEO friendly URL back to the unfriendly URL. This makes it so that your content gets indexed under SEO friendly URLs and the users on your site see only the SEO friendly URLs.
     
    Canonical, Apr 26, 2009 IP
  8. hostinghelp24

    hostinghelp24 Banned

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Website by static html create boredom spectators but by Dynamic not create such condition.
     
    hostinghelp24, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  9. hostinghelp24

    hostinghelp24 Banned

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    Website by Static html create boredom to spectators but by Dynamic html not get such.
     
    hostinghelp24, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  10. hostinghelp24

    hostinghelp24 Banned

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    Website by Static html create boredom to spectators but by Dynamic html not get such here contents can be set dynamically.
     
    hostinghelp24, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  11. thefandango

    thefandango Active Member

    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #11
    What on earth are people on about? Google spiders the static html generated - why would you need a plugin for wordpress to make static pages??

    I think we are actually talking about dynamic v's static link structure's here?
     
    thefandango, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  12. Lovely

    Lovely Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,997
    Likes Received:
    18
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #12
    however, the advantage of dynamic content views is that they can be restricted to certain users
     
    Lovely, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  13. ActiveFrost

    ActiveFrost Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    63
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    245
    #13
    So, there's no difference, I have weight-loss.html or /weight-loss/ ? Basically, I was talking about static/dynamic url's ( for those who asked what I'm talking about ).
     
    ActiveFrost, Apr 27, 2009 IP
    anildewani likes this.
  14. anildewani

    anildewani Peon

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    66
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Static pages are always good at SEO and get crawled easily. There are many tools available which can make your whole dynamic site got static in no time, google them up.

    I prefer static html pages in terms of SEO.
     
    anildewani, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  15. Canonical

    Canonical Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    141
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #15

    Correct... There is no difference in /weight-loss.html, /weight-loss.php, /weight-loss.asp, or /weight-loss/. They will all be viewed as containing the keyword phrase "weight loss" and the keywords "weight" and "loss". Google and the other engines could care lesss about the file extension used or whether it even has a file extension.

    However, /weight-loss.html is slightly better than /weightloss.html IMO. Google and the other engines are pretty good about treating these as the same although sometimes they might not chop up filenames without hyphens correctly. It's always better to be explicit and use 'hyphen' as a word separator in a file name or folder name rather than leave it to chance.

    The one exception to this is that I try to avoid using hyphens in domain names if possible. I think users remember domain names without hyphens easier and it's shorter and easier for them to type. Since domain names are remembered a lot easier than URLs to particular pages on that domain, this is one case where usability overrides SEO on my sites. And as I said above, the engines are pretty good about finding keywords in domain names without hyphens just as they are in page names and folder names in the URL.
     
    Canonical, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  16. lordofthering2008

    lordofthering2008 Peon

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    Definitely static content is better. So most webmasters use PHP to generate static HTML pages so SE's can easily find static pages.
     
    lordofthering2008, Apr 27, 2009 IP
  17. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,197
    Likes Received:
    819
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    320
    #17
    Static pages have one big advantage over dynamic pages.

    When people click on a static page in Google, they get the exact page that Google indexed and those people tend to stay on that website longer because they got a relevant page to their query.

    When people click on a dynamic page, they do not get what Google saw and do not get what they were searching for, so they quickly leave the site as they continue their search.

    If you want people to stay on your site, static pages are by far the best way since they give the visitor exactly what he wants.
     
    mmerlinn, May 2, 2009 IP