24 replies to this topic

[AlDugan]

Just a note to what people are saying. Yes it's a good idea to look into the future and prepare for what you may want to use later but you don't have to name your pages .php. Most servers allow you to change the extension that executes php code so in reality the .php means nothing more than telling the web server how to handle the page. You can have all of you .html, .htm pages execute php code as well. Hell, if you wanted you could have index.asp, index.cfp, index.jsp execute php code too. biggrin.gif

While that is true, not every web host is set up to allow that. If you're starting from scratch anyway it just makes things simpler to use the .php extension from the beginning. If your server or web host is able to use this feature though it is very valuable for sites that already have .html extensions for example, and you now want to add PHP capabilities. Parsing .html pages as .php will prevent you from having to rename and redirect older pages.

[arlen]

While that is true, not every web host is set up to allow that. If you're starting from scratch anyway it just makes things simpler to use the .php extension from the beginning. If your server or web host is able to use this feature though it is very valuable for sites that already have .html extensions for example, and you now want to add PHP capabilities. Parsing .html pages as .php will prevent you from having to rename and redirect older pages.

While this is also true, and not to confuse the issue, but there are a growing number of people who feel they find advantage in the SE's w/ an .html page naming scheme. I don't really buy that based on the excellent performance of many .php sites, but many .php cart / store software packages and hosted services are now offering what they call "SEO urls" ... using mod-rewrite or similar scripting abilities to rename their pages to the more traditional .html. Honestly, many people swear by it though it's just as likely their means of testing performance isn't really very thorough and they are ignoring other factors that have affected their SE performance, attributing it all to the file extension. A word of warning though ... relying on mod-rewrite can increase bandwidth significantly for larger sites, and unless done carefully can set you up for some duplicate content issues if the SE's index both the .php & .html versions of a page.

I don't think it really matters ... if your host isn't set up to do what you need done, I'd get a new host. It can be done on both Windows & Unix servers, so it is likely an issue of they don't want to rather than they can't. My site was originally done in .htm, and I'm sticking with it even though I'm moving to a .php store software. I have to hack my store software to make it use .htm which isn't ideal and could have been avoided w/ Al's suggestion. I'd say it's a good suggestion ... except, you'll have to 301 redirect your pages if you move from manually edited to a purchased or hosted software anyway, because they won't use your exact directory or naming structure, and a manually written html site won't use the name?parameters convention most dynamic software does. Unless you know exactly what software you'll use in the future, you really can't anticipate your needs.

Concerning the original question .... you usually don't have to know a scripting language to use a store / cart software or service, until you decide to customize your site. As long as you stay within the bounds of their standard templates & offerings you'll be fine ... as long as you're satisfied w/ a site that looks like 1000's of others.

Edited by arlen, 26 August 2007 - 09:41 AM.

[torka]

there are a growing number of people who feel they find advantage in the SE's w/ an .html page naming scheme. I don't really buy that based on the excellent performance of many .php sites, but many .php cart / store software packages and hosted services are now offering what they call "SEO urls" ... using mod-rewrite or similar scripting abilities to rename their pages to the more traditional .html.

That's a fallacy. The SEs do not prefer any file extension over another. You can make up your own file extensions, or you can have no file extensions at all. (Look at the fourth point on this summary of a talk given by Matt Cutts from Google.

File extensions in the URL won’t affect rankings (.php, .html, .htm, .asp, .aspx, .jsp), just don’t use .exe

Frankly, the makers of shopping cart and other site development software have gotten it wrong so many times before on what constitutes real search (and other visitor) friendliness, I would be disinclined to believe them just on general principles. Beyond that, I have the evidence of my own eyes -- and having these silly claims directly contradicted by a Google employee is just icing on the cake.

Just goes to show you, don't believe every thing you read.

--Torka

[nethy]

Anyone familiar with vp-asp? (a feature rich shopping cart software)

Any tips, pitfalls, super-great benefits?

[chrishirst]

As I recall (looked at it before coding my own) it had the usual "feature" of lots of querystring parameters

[nethy]

lots of querystring parameters

Is this a pitfall

[chrishirst]

it can be when trying to get a biggish site fully crawled and products are two or more clicks away from the "home" page, accessed through a category page that has querystrings.

[nethy]

From a usability perspective. Any pitfalls?

[chrishirst]

No idea, didn't go into it in great depth. Decided the navigation structure was never going to be what we needed and abandoned the idea of using it.

You should download the free version, give that some playing time, then judge for yourself based on your criteria.

[nethy]

I have. Just kinda wanted to see if anyone had any insight.
Its got everything, question is, how good are all those everythings?
Do you have any recomendations for other (.asp) shopping carts.
Easy to manage (for non technical end users), SEO friendly, & powerfull (full ecommerce solutions type thing)

Oh and customisable is good too.