Mod_Rewrite or Static HTML

hey, i recently started a post about whether se's read dynamic pages very well. my questions was answered, but i thought id start a poll to see what all you experts think would be best.

 

The point of using mod_rewrite in this context is based on the fact it effectively creates an .html page, as far as search engines and users are concerned.

It's like asking is it better to manually add the header and footer to every page, or use server-side includes.

Good question though.

 

I don't think there is a difference, but if I had to create hundreds of static pages over putting in mod_rewrite and making the changes site-wide.

 

this is irrelevant. SEs follow the dynamic links very well. Even if they look like this: http://www.amazon.com/Earrings-Jewe...11&no=16004771&keywords=ruby&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER
just check "silver genuine diamond" "Ruby Leverback Earrings".

I would say, no matter if static or dynamic, the URI must be legible for people as well...

 

I would say both are read well, but a newer site would benefit more from mod-rewrite

 

thanks for the reply, muchly appreciated

 

Site with practically static content = use your CMS to "staticalize" the pages then upload them. You only have to do this if something updates or if you decide to change your layout. This is like, for old articles, or stuff. Less server overhead.

Kind of how like blogger.com works when you use the FTP publish. Not the beta blogger, the "old" blogger.

Site with usually changing content = mod_rewrite might be a good idea.

It depends though on what you want to achieve and how much computing power you have, and if .0001 seconds make a difference or not. I personally have little need for the dynamic stuff on my sites (they're all small, maybe that's why.)

 

all three options are not complete

it helps temporarily but with the passage of time search engines do not show any respect for static pages versus dynamic pages.