Google likes static pages over dynamic right? If this is true, then i ask the following... I have a site that is all ASP pages that pull data and content from several databases. What i would like to do is figure out a way to output each dynamic page into a static HTML file which is uploaded to the site into predefined directories. I want this to be all performed automatically on a weely/daily schedule. This way my visitors and Google is presented with static pages but i can maintain the site more dynamically and with greater ease. Does anyone reccomend a good way to do this? And, does anyone see the benefit in doing this?
Zero benefit? Really? I thought that it might be beneficial to create static pages so that i could insert keywords into the filenames of each page and place them in directories that contain keywords. Noone thinks that would help?
Yes, putting your keywords in the filenames will have an impact. This doesn't mean static pages rank better than dynamic. It means files with keywords rank better than files without keywords.
nope. mod rewrite might be the best solution if you don't want dynamic pages. and yes dynamic pages rank nicely too. The only time dynamic pages will turn into a problem is when you need to login and such..
There is actually a benefit to static pages. Well, 2 that I can think of. 1) People rarely if ever type in .php they normally put .html - not that I think I ever get type-ins. 2) True static pages (not mod_rewrite stuff) put way less load on the server and are servered quicker to the user. If you have a database driven site which rarely if ever changes, you could convert it to a static site and reduce the load on the server. The mod_rewrite stuff is normally done to remove exended query's from then end of urls - at least that's why I bother with it. The only other time was when I changed a site to php based and all the backlinks pointed to .html - so I mod-rewrote the .html to .php and kept he backlinks.
Yes, you can. But then every single .html page is passed through the preprocessor. What's the point in that. I only want stuff getting preprocessed when they actually need to be.
Well if you have a common header and footer you can remove all that picky little editing that goes along with changing the entire site, have the pages processed as php and not have to worry about editing 5, 10, 100's of files when you change one link. It also makes it easy to add new files since they can easily include the common header and footer and all you have to worry about it adding new content. The point of it is called saving time!
Yes, I know that. I'm all for saving time - LOL. If you want to include custom headers/footers into a html document, then use SSI's. There's no reason why you should have to pass .html files through the php preprocessor. Thinking about it though, I had only considered doing this on a global scale - ie all sites on the server. There's no reason why you couldn't do it on an individual site basis, within the VirtualHost directive or within a .htaccess file - which then would make some sense.
off course not my site http://www.isponline.info is made in dynamic pages and updates regularly but i am also listed in google and other search engines