Google prefers dynamic site, not mod-rewrite

captive · #1 09-04-2006, 11:25 AM

hi all,,
I don't know how typical my experience is but may be it is worth to look at. I have site which is in ASP, so every link to different listings would be in form of program.asp? link=123. The site was indexed by Google with no problem but after reading the threads here that static sites suppose to be better, I installed a mod-rewrite that converted the links to something like title-link-123.html . My site has been indexed but now the same content that was showing in Google with dynamic link, it is indexed as supplemental result with static link. -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

FALON · #2 09-04-2006, 11:30 AM

may i know that how long has it been since you changed the link structure? Did you create a 301 redirect from the old to the new links? It can take Google some time to figure out the new links and not just think they are duplicates of the old links. -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

captive · #3 09-04-2006, 11:33 AM

I removed the old links with Google link removal and added the new ones with site map. It has worked since old pages are not showing in the index anymore. -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

RAZOR · #4 09-04-2006, 11:37 AM

It will take alittle time, but html pages are definately better.. -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

captive · #5 09-04-2006, 11:40 AM

is any body having proof or opinion that html there pages are better?? -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

SYMOND · #6 09-04-2006, 11:45 AM

obviously Google can crawl dynamic pages, although in my opinion, based on what I've learned and experienced, pagerank has alot to do with getting pages cached and those using dynamic url's are likely to have fewer pages cached compared to the same site using .html type extensions, so, an added boost for most that use static url's are keywords. Keywords in the url, however insignificant, most certainly do contribute to the search results, as evidenced by a search on MSN. MSN bolds the search terms in their serps, and along with the keyterms being bolded in the title and description, it's also bolded in the url. One can only assume the other search engines use this as well to some degree.
bye -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

PONTING · #7 09-04-2006, 11:49 AM

Since it appears you are now including the title in the URL, then there should eventually be a SEO benefit... but it will take some time. Provided there are not too many parameters in the URL, Google typically doesn't have a problem with dynamic URLs. Adding the title of the page in the URL can help with SEO, but otherwise I've had no problems getting Google to index dynamic URLs. It is often believed one factor in SEO is how long Google has known about a URL. These URLs will be new, and have to be learned again.
We also know that not all ranking factors happen "on the fly" at Google and things like "data refreshes" can have an impact. Thus it will take time for the new URLs to show their full effect. There are other things to consider too like any backlinks from external sites pointing to your old URLs.
Personally, I wouldn't have used the URL removal tool for the old pages. Even though they are removed, I've seen instances where Google's memory is -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

RAI · #8 09-04-2006, 11:52 AM

Just wanted to ask, would .html extensions be better or if I mod rewrite my pages to /filename ? -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

SKY · #9 09-04-2006, 11:55 AM

I prefer .html for the money pages, though there are differeing opinions on this. My preference is because /filename and /filename/ are technically different url's. I find it common that when obtaining natural inbound links ,which almost always go to the money pages that some people will append the trailing / and others won't. Also, I just prefer reserving / for categories.
cheers -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --

ABRAHM · #10 09-04-2006, 11:59 AM

imho to make any conclusion these days will be on weak bases.
because Google is very unstable in its acting in these months.
My one site has from 55 to 14XXX pages indexed in different datacenters for more than two months.
now what would you say ......?
Google is Unstable!!!
though i like .html pages. -- This message may have been cut off and the rest will only be shown to members. To become a member, click here --