Is it still worth converting to static URLs?

going for it!

[LeoXIV]

Hi everbody, My server logs show that even after 2 years of lunching my website Google still doesnt like the dynamic URLs and this is while that I dont have any URL with more than one variable (showdetail.aspx?productid=1000). So I think I should go for it and convert all of them to static ones but considering that its a mixed forums/ecommerce site it will be quite a job! so do you think it is worth the effort?

[macrost]

LeoXIV,
Trust me, go for it. You can either use a component like IISRewrite or use a custom 404 page to do what you want.

[Mike_Levin]

Static pages are worth it. If you're up to it, true static pages are even better, due to putting less stress on the Webserver.

Whatever you do to generate pages dynamically, you can turn it into a WSH program (with some small adjustments to accomplish SSI includes by some other means). The result is a program that spits out static HTML on some schedule (or whenever you click an icon).

[geebee2]

The problem might just be the "id" in "productid".

Google is averse to anything that looks like a session or user id, if you use "?product=.." instead your problems may be solved!

[tafkar]

Google indexed and gave PR to pages with a "?id=1234" from a site of mine. So I don't think the "?id=1234" is the problem unless it looks like a session id. Session ids are usually longer and/or more complicated than my example of a 4 digit number.

But anyway to be safe I agree with geebee2 on changing from "?productid=" to "?product".

[Janet]

Hi Geebee2,
I'm afraid it's not as simple as id=x and making it product= will not solve the problem, in my experience.

Google is quite able to index these urls and does so. The way to check is to do a site:www.mydomain.com command and see what Google returns. Usually the dynamic pages show up (unless there are other problems beside dynamic urls).

The issue that I am experiencing is that the dynamic pages are definitely in the index but are ranking poorly. A check using the Google toolbar says that these pages are "not ranked", which I take to mean that Google is not passing ANY Page Rank to them.

A quick whip around the internet checking out other dynamic pages with a "?" in the url show the same symptoms. While Google refuses to pass page rank, these pages will continue to underperform in the rankings.

It doesn't seem to matter what follows the? it can be id= category= or even?opendocument (for Lotus Notes sites), none of them have Page Rank.

I am attempting to solve this problem using the server.transfer method but have run into some problems with passing the parameters. You can see my recent post here [webmasterworld.com...]

[Easy_Coder]

I've noticed that google will pick up my pages that contain id=xyz in the querystring but the page rank on those has gone to zero in the last year. Prior to that the PR was always minus 1 from the PR on the home page. I'm considering a nightly publishing routine that pumps out the static pages.

[sullen]

google will pick up my pages that contain id=xyz in the querystring but the page rank on those has gone to zero in the last year

Same here! Although I don't use id as the variable name.

Is there a cheaper alternative to IISRewrite?

[pageoneresults]

Is there a cheaper alternative to IISRewrite?

You may want to look at ISAPI_Rewrite. Less expensive and more robust based on our testing of multiple ISAPI filters.

Eliminate all characters from the URI. If you are going to rewrite, you would be defeating its purpose if you are leaving anything in that URI but alpha/numerical characters and separators like slashes, hyphens and underscores.

[Easy_Coder]

Same here! Although I don't use id as the variable name.

I've tried moving away from id and have determined that anything I use makes no difference.

Funny how the strength of a dynamic programming language and web page can also be it's biggest weakness...

[LeoXIV]

google will pick up my pages that contain id=xyz in the querystring but the page rank on those has gone to zero in the last year

I completely agree with that, when i do a site search it returns 195 pages from my site BUT they are they tagged "Supplemental Result", they dont pass PR and worst of all they dont produce any backward links! (although they are cross referenced)

I think its kinda mixed belssing that i rank better on Inktomi.

[Easy_Coder]

I'm taking a looksee at the component (ISAPI_Rewrite) that was suggested by 'pageoneresults'. They offer a scaled down version free. Their full blown version appears to be economically priced for a single site.

pageoneresults, was it helicontech's software that you're suggesting?

[pageoneresults]

Helicontech's software that you're suggesting?

Yes. What's nice about the ISAPI_Rewrite filter is that you can install the global .ini at the server root and then drop the local .ini at each virtual root. So in essence, you have the ability to perform rewrites for each virtual domain. Open the .ini in NotePad, add your rules, save and its done. No IIS restart. There is also a log file produced at the root that will record any errors in the expressions. Really neat stuff.

[defanjos]

Another vote for ISAPI_Rewrite.
It runs flawlessly, easy to set-up, plus you'll get good support via their forum.

[LeoXIV]

now the question is what is the "perfect" static URL (G and others combined):

if the original URL is /show.aspx?brand=1&cat=3

is it?

1. /myBrand/myCat/
2. /myBrand/myCat/index.htm
3. /myBrand/myCat/index.aspx
.
.

[pageoneresults]

1. /myBrand/myCat/
2. /myBrand/myCat/index.htm
3. /myBrand/myCat/index.aspx

Out of the three, Option 1 would be the preferred method. There is no need to utilize a full URI to a root level page.

/brand/cat/
/brand/cat/product-1.asp
/brand/cat/product-2.asp

When using an ISAPI filter, we've found that using absolute URIs is mandatory.