my site is now .php as before it was .html and i seem to be down on the search engins and traffic, also i have used autogallery to make the main page. any ideas please
htmls are better in terms of SEO, if you want, try to rewrite your site or if so, try to access PHP via HTML in .htaccess.
LOL...where do you guys come up with these answers? You can use either extension and it will have absolutely no SEO implications. Your site dropped because you changed the URL...not because you changed the extension.
this is most definitly true, took one of my sites forever to get tracked when it was aspx, compared to a site like it that was html launched at the same time... solved it by reworking my script and calling .html''s instead with a nice url rewriter.
your site is not down, it is cached in the html page. won't make the biggest of the differences! but then a .html dose help! anyways, just open your site, and see the cached image, and you will see the html site been indexed. wait for the next crawl and it will be all right. one of my site faced the same problem, and i though it was unindexed, but then it was not, and in a few weeks my php index page also got indexed! cheers!
i was told that ? question marks in your url is not seo friendly! but not sure if this is true! is it hard to convert php to html or the .htacess option? where should i look to find out more about that? PeAcE
SEO has nothing to do with extensions, have you seen the extensions of some pages of Flickr, they are as odd as ".gne", google its self has ".py" as extensions. Your SE rankings dropped because your all old urls are broken, use mod rewrite to redirect old requests to new one.
If you look at it from an SE's point of view, why would the extension matter? I did read a study by an "SEOer" once that claimed that php pages ranked higher than html...But even if we assume this research was accurate, they left out a possible bias...With the bias being that those that know php, as a group, probably have better SEO skills than those that use html, as a group. Again, why would quality/relevancy depend on the extension of a page?
I don't think it does... e.g. if you have a page in .html extn and you rename it to .php, do you think there will be a change? No...
Actually, there will be a change. The URL to the html page will now get a 404 "page not found" message, while the php page won't have any existing links pointing to it. But, "if all things were equal" I agree that there's no difference between .php and .html.
I believe they affect the rank, if you just use yoururl.com/name/ it will get indexed quick and it will get rank easy!
yes it really affects ranks 'coz static url are SEO friendly than dynamic url like php.... "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... " from source.... You can use SEO tools to rewrite your dynamic url to static one.... Making it SE friendly...