Serving static HTML vs dynamic HTML - which is best for Google?

ikoonman

I am having a debate with one of my colleagues regarding serving up static pages vs dynamic (PHP/ASPX/ASP) pages through IIS. When I say static I mean physically call the dynamic page up on the server, say using Ajax call, and then saving the copy or result as a .HTML in the WWW root folder.

I am arguing that for the sake of housekeeping it is really not necessary to create static copies of dynamic pages anymore as Google wouldn't discriminate against how the page was served up. My colleague disagrees.

I told him that I could understand that 5 years ago, when trying to limit processor overhead, static pages would have been a clever idea so that the pages are just served up and not require processing/rendering. Today, servers are much more powerful so there is no really concern over processing time per page.

Google for instance has no way of knowing whether the page it is examining is dynamic or static - I don't think it matters.

Does it make sense where I am trying to get at? Any advise would be appreciated.

If you can point me to some supporting documentation re. this that would really be helpful too.

Thanks

pixeldesign

Google definitely loves static pages.He seems to like more static pages rather than dynamic.I would make dynamic pages and then make a url rewrite to make the structure of the url look static.

tomED

If you're using mod_rewrite or equivalent to serve the dynamic pages, Google won't know any different.

However, in saying that - you mention AJAX, which is a different issue altogether.

Can you explain in more detail what you plan to do with Ajax. For example, if you are leading them to one dynamic page e.g. index.php and have an ajax query on that page calling data from another dynamic page - that's not going to make the page any different than a dynamic page - in fact it will be worse in most cases.

pixeldesign

Google is doing difference between static and dynamic pages.Pages with .html, .htm means static for google.

tomED

pixeldesign wrote: »

Google is doing difference between static and dynamic pages.Pages with .html, .htm means static for google.

Totally untrue - have no idea where you got that information from, but it's totally incorrect.

pixeldesign

Well..thats my opinion..@ikoonman can do whatever he wants.

tricky D

Wrong opinion though:

Masquerading Your CGI/PHP Scripts as Static HTML Pages

nevermind ssi, .js and many other include methods in pages that appear static.

tomED

pixeldesign wrote: »

Well..thats my opinion..@ikoonman can do whatever he wants.

An opinion that is totall untrue and wrong

ikoonman

Thanks for all the responses so far guys.

tomED wrote: »

Totally untrue - have no idea where you got that information from, but it's totally incorrect.

I have to agree with tomED. From a technical perspective I don't believe that Google will discriminate against web servers, nor do they care how the pages are produced.

But still, some concrete evidence would be helpful

tomED

ikoonman wrote: »

I don't believe that Google will discriminate against web servers, nor do they care how the pages are produced.

But still, some concrete evidence would be helpful

That's not entirely true - you really need to look at how your pages are produced - which is why I asked the question about how you plan to handle your ajax produced pages.

Google will handle URLs like "page.php?id=123&name=tomed" differently than those like "page/123/tomed.html" - this is because google can see that 1 page is creating dynamic content - but with the latter Google can't tell for sure.

You need to use your common sense and knowledge of how the web works to understand this. How would google be ever able to tell if a page is dynamic or not if the extension is HTML or HTM?

If pixeldesign really thinks that there's a difference between .HTML and .HTM from Google's perspective - I think he needs to go back and research why we have these naming conventions in the first place.

ikoonman

which is why I asked the question about how you plan to handle your ajax produced pages.

I understand your question, but I am not talking about additional pages such as Ajax. I am talking about bog-standard, plain, straightforward content served up by IIS via a browser-client request.

You need to use your common sense and knowledge of how the web works to understand this. How would google be ever able to tell if a page is dynamic or not if the extension is HTML or HTM?

Well I suppose Google can inspect the GET/POST headers to see what server generate the pages. But still, I don't why Google would do this. Its hard to think that someone like Microsoft creates static copies of all their libraries just so that Google can index them. Like you say ... common sense ...

tomED

ikoonman wrote: »

Well I suppose Google can inspect the GET/POST headers to see what server generate the pages. But still, I don't why Google would do this. Its hard to think that someone like Microsoft creates static copies of all their libraries just so that Google can index them. Like you say ... common sense ...

Firstly, that point wasn't really aimed at you!

But to respond to your point. Examining the GET/POST headers wouldn't be a sufficient way of checking whether a page is dynamic or not - because not even dynamic page requires GET/POST variables.

On another point - Google will index dymanic pages with GET/POST variables. However, if you want to rank, the page is better served as a static looking page.

RedCardinal

tomED wrote: »

However, if you want to rank, the page is better served as a static looking page.

Probably not. Depending on how you set up your variables in the GET you might even do better

Google is much more agnostic these days on URL structure.

tomED

RedCardinal wrote: »

Probably not. Depending on how you set up your variables in the GET you might even do better

Google is much more agnostic these days on URL structure.

Based on what Richard - you got some examples you can show us?

RedCardinal

tomED wrote: »

Based on what Richard - you got some examples you can show us?

Based on what I've heard very directly from the horse's mouth
Well defined var names and values could offer as much or more benefit than SEO friendly URLs.

tomED

RedCardinal wrote: »

Based on what I've heard very directly from the horse's mouth
Well defined var names and values could offer as much or more benefit than SEO friendly URLs.

Ok well I work and on the basis of experience in fact and I've never seen a dynamic URL work aswell as a static one.

Moonstar

From 2005 -

Googlebot, parameters and dynamic sites