|HTML vs PHP |
| 1:15 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Is there a difference between HTML or PHP for Google?
I know that google have problems with positioning websites with long dynamic address (for example www.name.com/name.php?lotsofsomething343231231232).
What do you thing about PHP portal system which looks like this?
For Google thatīs looks like HTML and in theory should have better position than typical PHP.
[edited by: pageoneresults at 2:39 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2004]
[edit reason] Removed URI References - Please refer to TOS [/edit]
| 2:00 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I could make my php dump and understand urls that look like the one you posted, so that is not really the question. The question is, do you want to use a content management system to build your site, or not.
You might have to tweak any generic templating system to make it dump static looking urls, but I would be suprised to find that you would be the the first to want to do that with any particular content cystem.
| 2:31 pm on Nov 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is no advantage or disadvantage in technical terms between different file extensions (although I tend to favor using .htm or .html to avoid the association with a particular technology), but as you've noticed, long and meaningless query strings and multiple parameters are not ideal. In this case, then using mod_rewrite or an equivalent is good practice - for human visitors as well as bots.
It's a good start, but the URL structure could be improved further. One thing to note is to avoid underscores. Use hyphens instead - an underscore on an underlined link disappears, so it is not clear if it is an underscore or a space. If you can, avoid commas as well.
Ideally, you would end up with something more like this:
"Articles" appears to be the section of the site (so make it a fake directory), then your file name is made up of the keywords relating to the article itself. Make sure you avoid as much "cruft" as possible, such as "pub", etc. unless vital for your CMS.
| 9:15 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's possibly better advised to circumvent the issue of filt type in the first place, by concentrating your URLs into folder paths, ie:
That way, if your site development changes and you're requirement to change file types, it won't be an issue and the change would not affect established rankings for those folder URLs.
| 4:42 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
short answer: the extension makes not one bit of difference. You can serve up HTM, HTML, ASP, ASPX, PHP, PHP3, JSP, CFM... whatever! They all get indexed the same.
| 4:47 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|short answer: the extension makes not one bit of difference. You can serve up HTM, HTML, ASP, ASPX, PHP, PHP3, JSP, CFM... whatever! They all get indexed the same. |
Perhaps, but why be an easy target if one day they are not all indexed the same?
If you are all .html then you are generic, and generic is never bad.
Set apache to process all files thru php, and make all your files .html
| 5:17 am on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
point taken. If the next generation of search engines are going to be racist, it's good to start practicing your Yankee accent now. At least... it does no harm.