Google prefers dynamic site, not mod-rewrite

I also moved my website to a new domain, with friendly urls.
I made the redirects with php scripts.
After 6 months, the problem is that my old site is still ranking better even if it has only one page cached. Probably my old domain has more backlinks than the new one.

 

Well if you changed domain then it will really take some time, I went on editing spree after I changed internal structure of my website since I had tons of backlinks from Wikipedia etc.

 

gworld...

As others have touched on simply removing all the old links and URL's wasn't the best of ideas since you lost the the PR and ranking value any internal or external links were passing. A 301 would have transferred that value.

Eventually you should not only return from whence you came, but also receive a benefit, although I believe it to be minimal, from the URL itself.

Dave

 

I have been doing the simple 301 redirect during dynamic to static url conversion for all of my clients dynamic url sites for the last 2 years without any problem.

This is what i do -

1] use mod rewrite ( in htaccess) to get dynamic urls in static format

2] as the previous dynamic urls are already indexed by Google, i create another rewrite rule to redirect the old dynamic urls to their static counterparts ( you will need to tweak your redirection code a bit here, else the redirection can lead to an endless loop - ask me if the matter is not clear) - which gets internally rewritten to the original dynamic url

have not faced a problem with indexing so far.

 

Thanks for the help, but was wondering what a 301 rewrite is?

 

Permanent redirect - it tells robot/browser visiting that page requested has been permanently moved to new address so robots will update there listing accordingly.

Here is nice topic
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=23044

 

Thanks! Nice thread about it. After reading the thread, I redirected all my /filename to /filename/ . Another question, do you think /filename is better interms of seo or /filename/?

 

That's a load of crap. They would have to hack into your server to tell the difference.

You post crap just like livingearth and you even contradict yourself.

I had a nice laugh out of this. Thankfully someone else already debunked this.

 

Content from a database is found by "G". However to say they would have to hack into your server to determine if it (content)was dynamically generated shows your ignorance. There is a time lag or latency in the rendering of the page that acts as a footprint indicating a dynamically generated page and the lack of a php( or other dynamic extension ) is a sure tip off that mod rewrite is being used. Now as to whether or not Google penalizes for this is a matter of speculation. I personally do not believe they do, at least not in all cases.

 

Server is being swamped with requests -> pages load slowly. And I can easily fake a .html extension.
So don't jump the gun with your accusations for ignorance.

 

Why would Google (or any other search engine) care whether the site is database or flat file driven? It makes no difference, they're goal is to provide relevant results... that's it.

File extensions don't matter either... php, asp, html, htm, etc. make no difference at all. Just getting the variables out of the url is what Google wants, and will lead to more thorough indexing (straight from the horses mouth).