I prefer building simple HTML sites over using Wordpress. But my question is does Wordpress offer any other SEO advantages over a properly SEO optimized HTML site? Wordpress generates optimized meta tags. So does an HTML site Wordpress will typically have recurring original content So can an HTML site Wordpress will "ping" the search engines when ever it's updated An HTML site can get crawled about as easily Wordpress can optimized internal linking structure So can an HTML site So what's the difference? Or is there a difference?
Personally, I think static HTML sites offer the best SEO, for the fact that you can control every aspect of the HTML coding. But obviously, you sacrifice the ease of content management. On the other hand, you can also use Dreamweaver to effectively manage your content through templates, but still have the full control of hand coding your own HTML/PHP/ASP/ or whatever you want. As for pinging, if you can set up an RSS feed (manually created), then you can manage it through Feedburner, which will automatically ping dozens of other RSS search engines on a regular basis.
Steve, I am familiar with the benefits of having an RSS feed but I have never set one up on my site. Can you tell me where I might find the way to do it?
Do a Google search for "RSS editor". You'll find lots of applications that will let you manually create and update an RSS feed.
Thats good steve. But now a days WordPress sites are doing great. We can use SEO plugins and with regular posting we can get better ranking day by day. What do you say?
It's the same, only static HTML is loading faster - but again if you use some kind of cache plugin for WP then that's the same also
WordPress and your SEO plugins are great. But the question that leaseman had is if WordPress gives you a greater SEO advantage over writing straight HTML code. And the answer is no. Hand coding your HTML gives you the most control over SEO. Obviously, it's a pain in the ass to hand code hundreds of pages, hence a CMS is advantageous. But like I was saying above, you can set up templates in Dreamweaver and effectively have the same thing, while still hand rolling your own code.
If you're planning to update regularly, have a large site - wordpress. If you're planning a mini-site which will get updated once a year - HTML.
If you're planning to update regularly, have a large site - wordpress. If you're planning a mini-site which will get updated once a year - HTML.
For those who are not familiar with HTML coding then Wordpress is the best solution for that because they have a CMS system that most developers prefer to use and it is easy to use. I think both are ok for SEO..
Exactly, doing it this way too. Also for WP you need to set up a DB and if you are on a shared hosting then you might be limited by the amount of DB's you can create.
There is a major difference and its obvious to see. wordpress look good, html doesnt have a look. But the SEO is the same. You can rank highly with both sites as long as the works done. I just changed my html site to a wordpress for the simplicity and apps. I'm not a coder so theres less work for me with plugins. I do research and find the app i need. Plus the onsite seo is much simpler with plugins. Yet there are certain elements you can't reach well maybe I just don't know how yet. With html nothings hidden an everything can be edited, if you have the skill for this. ***k wordpress and make a masterpiece! Wordpress can't give you a masterpiece I ranked quite well with both sites but for different keywords due to site changes. I'd recommend wordpress to a friend but always know that people with html can better any wordpress site with the right effort.
I woud say wordpress rock, I have ranked high using wordpress in seo. Wordpress has hundreds of plugins which are really a good including those seo plugins. You can add/remove or make any change to hundreds or thousands of your pages in minutes. You can also control every part of your page if you use right plugins. Its quick and easy. Somehow I think google like wordpress blog format more than general website.
If SEO and/or accessibility are your biggest concerns, then raw HTML is going to be your best bet. A poster above me has "inyourweb.com" in their signature. Looking at the generated HTML for each post, it's using "<br /><br />" to split paragraphs, instead of proper <p> tags. Additionally, instead of using semantic tags appropriately, it's just using styles in <span> tags, which are only sometimes appropriate. RSS feeds aren't that difficult to craft on your own, you just need some XML knowledge. WordPress does have one huge advantage though, it makes managing your site a LOT easier.
I would have build my site on wordpress, but no It took me long time and effort and a lot of php coding and really it`s working well with SEO. HTML is best, no ajax, no flash. Dont be scared by my site look and feel as I am the only one developer, It is taking me time to updated my website`s new look.
Honestly, this is probably one of the toughest questions in website creation. Wordpress is so powerful, and yet can still be heavily edited!