Comments on: Html vs Php – An seo benefit?

By: drywall stilts

drywall stilts — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 04:49:27 +0000

I think its a no brainer that google gives hiring ranking to static looking urls vs dyanmic query string. What would be interesting would be to see the difference between .php and .html file extensions.

By: eric

eric — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:04:08 +0000

.html and .php are treated the same by Google according to Google, and supposedly even dynamic URL’s. But….

Users DO look at the URL before they click and an HTML extension is usually the most inviting. Possibly a /directory/ is just as good, especially if the URL sting contains anything that makes them say “yeah, that’s what I want!” or “Oooh, I wonder what that’s all about?”

(Tons of marketing research has been done on headlines, but someday I’d love to see an extension of that; an experiment or study of leaving headlines and descriptions alone, and experimenting just with URL strings that pull, especially anything that pulls universally and does not need to match a search query to work)

Not only do static URL’s translate to user clicks, but there’s more than Google out there, and other engines may not be as good at dynamic URL indexing as Google brags to be. Eventually traffic can convert to natural links, and people tend to be more willing to link to a static looking URL. They want to know it will still be there tomorrow if they are going to bother to link to it.

So even if Google treated them exactly the same, static is still better IMO.

By: Best_optimized

Best_optimized — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:24:40 +0000

SOURAV, here is an example. seomoz traffic from search engines went way up since they changed their urls. before they changed their urls they rarely came up in the search engines.

By: visio

visio — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:56:35 +0000

Somehow I find simple static html the easiest for my users especially when they want to remember them. And there is solid proof that dynamic urls do not perform as well as static, they get crawled, indexed and even perform very well but not as well as they could. Believe me I have seen it.

By: Sourav

Sourav — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:02:17 +0000

in this industry, you will find many people with varied vision……

I am not agreeing with your example…I can give you hundreds of example – where sites with difficult ulrs are doing exceptionally well on all SE’s…….the urls is all about making things easier for the users….

And just one more question…..why you have configured your comments section – like this…..its coming everying thing in caps….

I think you should change it…that a suggestion….

By: Kok internet marketing

Kok internet marketing — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:05:03 +0000

As brian correctly states you have not stated or investigated html vs php (like you suggest in the title of your post), but simply compared dynamic vs permanent links. it is well known that permanent links are rated better, however any differences in the threatment of php and html are unlikely as both can be easily altered by just minor settings on your webserver.

By: Best_optimized

Best_optimized — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:21:07 +0000

I don’t think extension has anything to do with rankings but query strings do.

By: visio

visio — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:01:41 +0000

I have heard rumors but never had evidence that there would be a difference. My guess would be that they would be treated basically the same.
I think the problem lies in the ? and = parameters of the php url.

But I will put that on my experiment list and work on testing that to see if there is a difference. Not quite sure how to do it though….

By: Brian Harris

Brian Harris — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:39:19 +0000

In your example above, have you compared writing url’s from showthread.php?t=204881 to google-discussion-f8.html vs google-discussion-f8.php