Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



SEO Class in Chicago, IL

Learn How To Optimize Your Website on July 26, 2013


Looking for personalized in-depth SEO training among your peers?



High Rankings is offering a 1-day customized SEO training class in Chicago. Class size is limited so please sign-up now if you want in!



 


Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Static Urls Vrs Dynamic Urls


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 ttt

ttt

    HR 1

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 27 August 2003 - 11:06 AM

Hi everyone,

Here is the million dollar question. I have a site that generates content from a database (written in php actually). I've notice some controversy whether to use static urls or dynamic urls. I have many dynacally generated links that contain a querystring that passes the parameters to a sql statement in order to generate the results. For example ...
the link may look something like:

<a href="results.php?someId=123"> ... </a> // where someId is passed to db

and the result page url would look something like:

www.somesite.com/result.php?someId=123

I am told that some search engines have a problem indexing such a url and to explore the possiblilities of url rewritting (which I'd really like to avoid right now)

Is this true? Anyone have any input on this?

For example, which (if any) is more search engine friendly? A url that is something like:

www.somesite.com/dir
or:
www.somesite.com/results.php?someId=123

Thanks for your input ...

#2 Jill

Jill

    High Rankings Advisor

  • Admin
  • 32,379 posts

Posted 27 August 2003 - 11:18 AM

Welcome, ttt! :rolleyes:

We've been discussing this in other threads here on the forum. You might want to take a look at those.

Basically, the engines don't have much problem with the type of URL you are talking about any more. This forum has similar URLs and has over 500 pages indexed already. (We're only about a month old or so.)

Jill

#3 BrianR

BrianR

    Is it just me, or is it getting cooler in the evenings...?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts
  • Location:Chester, UK

Posted 27 August 2003 - 04:55 PM

(Jill - not sure which thread you want this post in, so please feel free to move it.)

I'm confused! - which is why I ask questions in this forum!

Basically, the engines don't have much problem with the type of URL you are talking about any more.


I understand that Google is now listing dynamic urls - I checked out a site I'm working on that is over half dynamic pages (content management system) and Google reported 74 pages, lots of which have dynamic urls.

Then I go over to Alltheweb and I get just 8 pages, only one of which is a dynamic url. And MSN reports just 4 pages, none of which are dynamic urls.

The difference is so vast that I find it difficult to believe that MSN and Alltheweb are searching dynamic urls thoroughly, especially as Google and Alltheweb both search roughly 3 billion pages.

What am I missing??

Thanks.

BrianR

#4 ChrisB

ChrisB

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 24 September 2003 - 10:36 AM

Google specifically states in their webmaster help section that they will sometimes limit the number of dynamic URLs that they will index from a specific site.

Additionally such dynamic urls are not user friendly.

Tell me, which one is easier to remember:

http://www.example.c...icle.php?id=907

or

http://www.example.c...e/breastfeeding

The other benefit of search engine friendly URLs is that they mask what server side technology you use which allows you to more easily change it in the future (without losing any incoming links).

There are also easier ways to do it than using mod_rewrite.

http://www.websitepu..._friendly_urls/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users