Do html pages rank higher then dynamic ones?

the dynamic pages have been alredy indexed

[walkman]

the dynamic pages have been already indexed, but I'm wondering if via rewrite to make them html or not. It's easier for as it is but if it means more visitors /money I'm in...
the dynamic address is like this: /good_keyword.cgi?Terms=Name-of-store and I get people looking for the "keyword" on that store.

Since I did this, my earnings climbed by 1500%...

thanks in advance

[dirkz]

Seemingly static HTML pages will always give you an edge over dynamically ones. Just look at this forum.

[walkman]

>Seemingly static HTML pages will always give you an edge >over dynamically ones. Just look at this forum.

wow. I didn't know html or static matters other than whether it's indexable or not. Anyone else can give an opinion on this? Pleeeeeassss..... :)

[mep00]

It's possible to make a dynamic page look static under Apache. Instead of

www.yourdom.com/page.php?id=foo&code=bar

you can have

www.yourdom.com/page/foo/bar.html

and have page.php interpret the url. For how to do this, I don't remember, but I've seen it posted.

This should be the best of both worlds, unless there is a reason unbeknown to why it shouldn't work.

[walkman]

I understand you can make it look static via rewrite, just wasn't sure if it matters to Google rankings. They can currently index my dynamic pages too.

[dirkz]

> Anyone else can give an opinion on this?

Hehe. This this isn't my opinion. I recently read about it in the private forum. There was a URL with an interview with a Google employee.

Please note I didn't say it ranks you higher. But it *can* give you an edge.

[Ledfish]

We recently implemented ISAPI Rewrite on a brand spanking new site. we re-wrote the urls to end with .html. With-in about a month, about 190 pages have been indexed. So I think that if you have a dynamic site on a windows server, getting your host or getting a host that allows ISAPI Rewrite is well worth any hassle. We are proceeding with moving four other domains to a new host just because the results were so good.

If your site is hosted on an apache server, then use mod-rewrite. The time it will take to figure it out an dunderstand it will be well invested.

Google says it can index dynamic pages, but dynamic pages don't get alot of priority and so it's really hit and miss depending on your ranking.

[yowza]

Where's the proof that dynamic pages don't rank as high as static pages?

I'd like to see some solid proof one way or another.

After Florida everyone was complaining that the top of the results were filled with forums and big company sites. What do these sites have in common? They are dynamic. Most of them also have high pagerank too.

I don't know if one is better or not, but I would like to see some proof to back up claims.

[percentages]

>Do html pages rank higher then dynamic ones?

Static pages rank a tad higher than dynamic ones, do the test and prove it to yourselves ;)

[dirkz]

> Where's the proof that dynamic pages don't rank as high as static pages?

There is no proof in this world :) Just educated guesses.

[ByronM]

Why not just build a good site map that gives the crawler a url to follow and a description of the url. Alot of times the pages aren't picked up simply because there isn't much content for it to get ranked with any score.

If you build out a site map that gives an href= with a description of the url then google is pretty good at following that and having somewhat of a description of the content being spidered.

Ofcourse you can use mod-rewrite, but if you site is extremely busy do you want the overhead? I don't think it is really php vs asp vs html, its just how much content your getting out of the dynamic uri.

[Ledfish]

I'm not sure that google would rank html pages better than dynamic, but I'm quite sure that your static ones will get crawled and ranked much faster.

As of this morning, our recently new site that we have been rewriting the dynamic urls now has 600 pages indexed and ranked by google. (Just a few days ago it was only 190)

I truly believe that how much priority dynamic pages get at being crawled by google might be a factor of site rank, links etc. Our new site is currently at page rank 4 and only 5 links and has been around about 45 days. Our other site with purely dynamic pages is a page rank 5, with about 60 links and has been around since 1997, it's daily traffic right now is 10 times the new site, but yet only 150 out of 3000 pages have been indexed.

Why would google like the new site better? it has to be the static looking urls. I'm not saying google won't index dynamic content. They will and do, but I'm saying that if your goal is to get the majority of your pages indexed and ranked quickly, or you have been having problem getting dynamic pages crawled, your best bet is with static ones or rewrite the dynamic urls.

I should also mention that because we are an e-commerce operation, most of our content rich pages are the product details pages. It didn't matter what I did before rewriting the urls, I couldn't even get google to sniff at those pages. With the new site, about 550 out of the 600 pages now indexed are product detail pages.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I mostly use dynamic pages, and one of those (created on nov 13th last year) now ranks 5th out of approx. 715,000 on Google with searching only 3 rather common keywords.

I'm beginning to think there's more importance to the page title than I expected at first, since the page's title is also comprised of these three words.

edit: the site itself was registered no earlier than nov 4th

[jweighell]

Do other search engine spiders prefer static pages? My home page shows up in most search engines, but non of the spiders (other than Googlebot) seem to have bothered indexing any of my dynamic pages...

[mona]

Based on the dynamic site I work on - yes. I make all my content pages static now.

[dirkz]

> Do other search engine spiders prefer static pages?

I think Google tries hardest :-)

[dirkz]

> but I'm quite sure that your static ones will get crawled and ranked much faster.

This is exactly what I tried to come through :-)

Maybe I should attend a course on how to express myself better :)

[ByronM]

Honestly my forums got indexed more then my static content. I didn't notice this until my latest log analyzer when i saw lots of referrs for keywords i had been ignoring only to see that these were indexed discussions.

I went through and saw my hand written static pages hadn't showed up nearly as quickly or at all yet.

could be use of googlebar giving more results to the bots on higher activity pages perhaps?

[edh1138]

I've been working on my employers site for about 6 months now, having got some excellent rankings for static pages.

However, this past week or two I've seen a lot of the dynamic pages suddenly start appearing above the static page results.

[dirkz]

> could be use of googlebar giving more results to the bots on higher activity pages perhaps?

Maybe you have just more (new) links to your dynamic pages.

[ByronM]

The dynamic links in my case are forum topics that can be replaced, updated or changed.

All of my inbound links point to / on my domain.

With the latest google spider i have 0 problems getting my dynamic site content spidered and it reflects in my logs buy showing page 1 SERP's for keywords i had never thought to try :)

[walkman]

OK, it has been re-written via apache. What did it? My other site that has php-nuke (urls re-written to be google friendly via nukecops.com) gets more visitors from MSN than Google (heavily indexed in Google). I hope to gain some from those engines and at least stay even with Google...

I have one question: the way it has been written is [wdomain.com...] However, most people in search engines search for "store_name keyword".

In the title, desc, keywords, and body it's in the "store_name keyword" format. Does it matter (SEO wise) that in the URL is different? Is it worth changing it (I rather not for a few reasons)? Please advise..

thanks again for the discussion and insight,

[dirkz]

> Does it matter (SEO wise) that in the URL is different? Is it worth changing it

Google's Algo is very complex.

I would strongly advise to use the title that sounds best or says best what's contained in the page, ditto the URL.

Don't put too much emphasis on URLs or keywords.