Static Sites vs. CMS

Hello!
DP Friends

I had to clarify my doubts in between SEO's of Static Sites and Content Management System Sites! More importantly i noticed that CMS provides better and fastest way of Deep Linking and Indexing as compare to other simple Static Sites.

Please Comment!


Thanks

Regards

Jez

 

Crawlers can not tell what your backend looks like, it is all rendered the same. Your question isn't an SEO question, its about whats easier for the webmaster.

 

But! in case of examining both ways! which is more preferable for SEO

 

The same, there is no difference, the crawlers see the same output data from the web server.

 

I would say Hand Built sites are the best for SEO. People are correct in stating that the SERPs can't tell but for instance Joomla's built in SEO sux, and many of the adon SEO products still create duplicate content, I know WP has some duplicate content issues as well.

I'm not sure about drupal or phpnuke maybe they are better...

I still use Joomla all the time but since the SEO features aren't great you have more work on your hands, I use ArtioSEO and have duplicate content problems with it (its very documented in their forums)... but it makes it easier to make sites so I deal with it..

 

Thats why correct usage of your robots.txt and meta robots is essential with CMS or Blogs.

 

It all depends on how many backlinks a specific site has. There's not much difference between "static sites" and sites using some type of cms as long as you properly SEO it.