homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

Keep Static layout or Database Dynamic for google

 4:38 pm on Jun 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

Hi Guys!

I own a website that sells about 20 to 25 products since 2004. This store is fully static whit html extensions. I even have an old static Paypal cart for secondary products.

The code and webdesign software has been pushed to the max in term of SEO. I'm starting to lose ranking because I this (since Panda). I lost traffic on my homepage but the traffic on the different static product pages did not decrease. I'm looking into changing to the Dreamweaver platform. I just made a new website with a new domain with Wordpress and I noticed that It was a bit limited in certain thing.

My question to you is:

Should I go with a dynamic product cart or should I do static pages with the same URLs as before with the products on them?

Thanks for your time,




 11:59 pm on Jun 19, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't think the URL itself has anything much to do with ranking these days.


 4:19 pm on Jun 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

There are quite a few e-commerce packages that support any url format so you could make the change to a dynamic site but maintain the old urls


 4:56 pm on Jun 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

I seem to find that static seems to get a slight edge and is easier to work with in the long run. Although full site overhauls are a huge pain.


 5:20 pm on Jun 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

I don't think the URL itself has anything much to do with ranking these days.

Really? I'd love to hear why as that caught me by surprise. I still find that old, established and well sniffed urls seem important.

If age of site matters then age of url must too, no?


 6:40 pm on Jun 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

Ah - yes, the "age" of the URL certainly plays into things, but not so much the actual characters that are used. That's what I was pointing to - the charaters in the URL - and it's my growing sense over the past few years from redevelopment projects I've been involved with.

Years back, there was almost a guaranteed ranking boost gained from moving to pretty, nicely keyworded URLs. This was especially so when technically sound 301 redirects were in place along with fanatical elimination of canonical issues.

More and more, I don't see the same boost, even when moving from the messiest URL structures and I've given that a lot of thought. It occurs to me that Google really wants to assess the content itself, along with it's user engagement. After all, why would they want to reward merely technical achievements if they don't have to? Their users certainly don't care much about such things.

Adn so I see Google has picked up all manner of other relevance cues and they depend less and less on the almost mechanical factors such as the URL characters and keywords.


 8:41 pm on Jun 20, 2012 (gmt 0)

There are other factors to consider as well. For example, the URL can affect the CTR from the Google SERPs. A short URL containing the keywords is more likely to be clicked than long nonsensical URL.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved