file includes and page load times

[mossimo]

Any have info on the consequences of page load times using
<!--#include file="name.asp"-->

Used sparingly for for light content such as copyrights ect, no big deal.
But how crazy can you get with it, Example using includes for the bulk of the page body text and other sections. How about metatags as a include?

[Dreamquick]

I've used includes everywhere on a page apart from the body (that's unique to the page so it lives on the page) - and that includes using them for dynamic HEAD, TITLE and metatags as well as common headers, footers and navigation.

The #INCLUDE's themselves produce no noticable slow-down or increase in load times, however what you are trying to do inside the include might have an effect of load times - for example querying a database will normally cause a delay until the query has executed.

Getting really crazy? Multi-level includes - ie the page includes a file, this include then includes several more includes and so on...

- Tony

[mossimo]

Thanks Dreamquick but How strongly to you fell it’s safe for use on met tags. Do you really feel there is no penalty?

[txbakers]

Includes cause no penalty because only the rendered HTML gets spidered. The spiders don't know that you have the source split between 7 files. The final HTML is what is rendered and spidered.

[mossimo]

I just about clears it all up thanks people

By the if the include is text (no scripts) such as meta tags it can a .txt file correct. No benefit to making it .asp

[aspdaddy]

Thats a good point, I'v known developers name them .inc files but then anyone could open them and take a look, I'd stick with .asp for that reason.

[Dreamquick]

in addition to what txbakers said on the subject;

[quote]How strongly to you fell it's safe for use on met tags. Do you really feel there is no penalty?[quote]

Don't assume that an include is automatically static, personally I rarely use static includes - for meta tags, titles etc. I have a dynamic (script) include which handles the structure and formatting for me but which allows me to override the defaults (which I do almost everywhere) so that each page contains a unique title and description.

The end effect is a site which on the whole appears to be hand-crafted HTML but which is mostly machine driven and incredibly low maintenance.

On the penalty front I'd have to say that there is no penalty - firstly because it's impossible to detect, secondly because I have a site using these techniques which does quite well in google and similar non-pfi engines.

-Tony