Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

does google favour static html pages over dynamic ones?

pages with querystrings are spidered but do badly in serps



3:16 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Google indexes my internal (.asp) pages but they always do badly in the serps.
Would I be better off creating new pages that do not contain querystrings?


4:05 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

In my experience google favours neither type of page more than the other. If however, your .asp pages have excessively long query strings or explicitly refer to sessions ids in whatever form, e.g SID=XYZ, google might not give them the weighting they deserve or might indeed not index them at all. If your'e running Apache server it might be worth experimenting with mod_rewrite commands to change your .asp pages into static .html pages without having to redesign your entire site. This process involves editing your .htaccess file which is far too complicated to explain in this thread but if you search this site for "mod_rewrite" and ".htaccess" I'm sure you'll find some helpful information.


4:10 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Do you think that google would regard a querystring such as "example.asp?idcategory=1" as being too similar to a session id?


4:48 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Do you think that google would regard a querystring such as "example.asp?idcategory=1" as being too similar to a session id?

Yes. In my experience, stay away from any query string that contains the letters i and d in succession, and stay away from long query strings or those that appear to look like garbage (like a session id: asdf887adioe882, etc.) I've seen problems with strings like article_id, storyID, and many other variations. While I haven't tested extensively that many possible combinations to see which ones cause problems, that's mostly because I feel it's a complete waste of time. Just stay away from anything resembling 'id' and the problem is solved regardless.

I have a different opinion about static vs. dynamic URLS than most around here. I recently switched from php pages with query strings to static html pages (via mod_rewrite) without query strings. In my experience (and I readily admit others report having contrary evidence) Google does indeed rank my static pages better than it did when they were php. Even pages that had php extensions and no query strings rank better as .html pages now. Yes yes, I know many have other ideas and as much evidence as I to support their claims... I'm just stating what I've seen myself.

More importantly however are OTHER search engines besides Google. Yahoo for instance throughout a 6 month period never took more than my top level pages (about 22 in total) when they had php extensions and/or query strings. Within 3 days of implementing the mod_rewrite extensions I had over 700 pages spidered and they're slowly appearing in Yahoo's index (a few added each day). My experience is that while yahoo (and others) will spider a page with a query string, they won't spider ANOTHER dynamic link from a dynamic page. Meaning that the top level pages all had query strings and were spidered fine. However the pages that those pages linked to that ALSO contained query strings were never spidered. I think I've read around here somewhere that Yahoo (and possibly others) don't spider from dynamic, TO dynamic, so that claim isn't solely mine, and seems to support my theory.

Lastly, for those that say it doesn't matter what yahoo, or any of the other engines do, and it doesn't matter whether they can spider your pages, I'd respectfully disagree. I've noticed a trend recently in my logs that although I get very few hits from the smaller niche engines... the hits I DO get are more likely to spontaneously link to the page they found than the hits I get from Google. What I mean is that it is important to be easily accessible to all the engines because (in my opinion) many people doing research will use various engines for different perspectives. And it's those people doing research who (again, my opinion) are more likely to provide a link back to your page if they find it useful. The average surfer uses the biggest engines and often doesn't link, the niche surfer often uses the niche engine, and may be more inclined to link due to their particular interest in that niche. And we all know that links are the backbone of Google right? ;)

Something to think about anyway.


8:15 pm on Jun 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

One thing that I have noticed is that(in my area) pages that have a URL something like mykeyword.com/mykeyword/keyword.html tend to rank much better that mykeyword.com/category.asp?subject=mykeyword.

I had thought that having the keyword in the URL (in the querystring in this example) would have the same effect as having a folder or filename with the keyword, but apparently not according to the SERPS.


Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month