Dynamic pages vs SEO

[SEO Lady]

I have a question:

A client's site populates registered user's profile pages by way of dynamic content.

Would this be indexed differently / crawled differently by Google as opposed to a static HTML page?

My thoughts are that it would not be crawled in full as potentially the info could change and be refreshed constantly?

Thank you
Nina

 

[loubycee]

Hi I have to agree with Nina

asp is great as its easy to update, used in ecommerce and looks good

the only thing is, with constant changes the se's may not have a chance to index it

 

[OldWelshGuy]

if they are serving up identical content on multiple urls, then they could well be heading for a penalty from Google for attempted spam.

If the url is constant then no problem with it being dynamic.

Maybe I have misunderstood?

 

[DotNetWebs]

If you do it correctly there is no difference between 'static' and 'dynamic' HTML - in fact the 'client', be it a browser or a spider, may not be even be aware of 'how' the HTML was generated- all it sees is HTML.

As OWG says problems are when dynamic content is used create multiple urls with the same content.

The converse is also true - e.g if multiple profiles are being be viewed on the same url.

Basically it all depends on the architecture!

Regards

Dotty

 

[DesignerNick]

I have a question:

A client's site populates registered user's profile pages by way of dynamic content.

Would this be indexed differently / crawled differently by Google as opposed to a static HTML page?

My thoughts are that it would not be crawled in full as potentially the info could change and be refreshed constantly?

Thank you
Nina

How would google know it is different? Make sure there are not too many foot prints that could be duplicated as said but a large % of websites are dynamic now anyway and they do fine!

The source code is no different if it is from a database or a static page!

Wordpress is dynamic and that has no issues!

Are they wanting to seo user profiles? Bit strange!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

How would google know it is different? Make sure there are not too many foot prints that could be duplicated as said but a large % of websites are dynamic now anyway and they do fine!

The source code is no different if it is from a database or a static page!

Wordpress is dynamic and that has no issues!

Are they wanting to seo user profiles? Bit strange!

Not if it is a directory it isn't, as that is the very page you would want spidered

 

[DesignerNick]

Ahh very true, for some reason I was just thinking forums!

 

[WebTrust]

Dynamic URLs are fine.

 

[loubycee]

think I have to disagree, they aren't perfect in any way shape or IT form, but they do a job that they have to without being over-damaging

 

[DesignerNick]

think I have to disagree, they aren't perfect in any way shape or IT form, but they do a job that they have to without being over-damaging

What is the difference in terms of google?

 

[DotNetWebs]

think I have to disagree, they aren't perfect in any way shape or IT form, but they do a job that they have to without being over-damaging

IMO Thats a meaningless reply.

As I have said and others have implied its possible to architect a site so that you, or the search engine, would have no idea whether the pages where static or dynamic.

Regards

Dotty


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

From Google:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html

Earl

 

[DesignerNick]

From Google:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html

Earl

Thats unrelated, you can make dynamic pages look exactly like static ones! Not many people use dynamic url structures now, they have seo friendly links!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I am still struggling to work out what the question is about? is it about pure dynamic urls, or is it about urls that change dynamically for the same content ?

 

Thats unrelated, you can make dynamic pages look exactly like static ones! Not many people use dynamic url structures now, they have seo friendly links!

I guess you missed this bit.

the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static.

A dynamic page will very rarely do as well as a static page in the engines.

Earl

 

[DesignerNick]

I guess you missed this bit.

the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static.

A dynamic page will very rarely do as well as a static page in the engines.

Earl

How? You can make the source codes the same and load time might be slightly different.

So Wordpress will never do as well as a static html site?

I am honestly shocked if that is the case, my best performing sites are all dynamic!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

the post is 3 yrs old, it is out of date, there are many other instances of google making it crystal clear that provided it can be parsed, it can be spidered

 

How? You can make the source codes the same and load time might be slightly different.

So Wordpress will never do as well as a static html site?

I am honestly shocked if that is the case, my best performing sites are all dynamic!

Thats right all things being equal wordpress loses.

Whats your best performing sites are they in a high competition area?

I would guess not.

Earl

 

[DesignerNick]

Thats right all things being equal wordpress loses.

Whats your best performing sites are they in a high competition area?

I would guess not.

Earl

A couple of them are

How many sites are using static html without some sort of cms? How can google tell if the source code is the same?

I dont believe that! I am no seo expert but I can make a dynamic site look like a static one and it does work!

 

[OldWelshGuy]

My umbrella site is php, but I have it set in the htaccess file to parse php as html. hence the html urls, It was originally static, I wanted dynamic pages, so simply instructed the server to parse the php and serve up html page extensions.

 

[DesignerNick]

My umbrella site is php, but I have it set in the htaccess file to parse php as html. hence the html urls, It was originally static, I wanted dynamic pages, so simply instructed the server to parse the php and serve up html page extensions.

Exactly, so easy to do and looks static!

 

[Codefixer]

Hello,

If you have 2 pages

yoursite.com/michael-wall.html
yoursite.com/user-profile.aspx?id=22

Both may serve the same content and return HTML. Google is primarily interested in the content.

The page with michael-wall in the URL might rank slightly better for the search term 'michael wall' than the page with the querystring but that's arguable, it'll certainly have a better click thru rate.

The pages will be crawled and indexed the same.

If you have page such as

yoursite.com/user-profile.aspx?id=22&Sortby=1

You may wish to block the additional parameters in the robots file to stop masses of duplicate content being indexed.

Google is fine with querystring parameters and isn't bothered about file extensions. Many ASP & .ASPX sites still use querystrings.

Also if a user decides to change their content (which he may be able to do for a user profile system) significantly every other day then it will affect his rankings in that they won't be stable for anything.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I guess you missed this bit.

the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static.

A dynamic page will very rarely do as well as a static page in the engines.

Earl

Earl that paragraph is talking about "Session IDs" etc. The problem with Session IDs is that they rely on client-side cookies and the Session IDs change each time for each visitor (an therefore present a different URL)

That is very different from serving up dynamic pages with a REST / RESTful URL structure which to all intents and purposes will look exactly like static pages to the search engine.

Regards

Dotty

 

[SEO Lady]

yoursite.com/michael-wall.html

Yes it's like this, with added keywords, for example
yoursite.com/michael-wall-blue widget-specialist-uk.html
Generated from the back end of the site.

Also, as Smarter Webdesign says
"Exactly, so easy to do and looks static!"
... the looks are unimportant, the question was aimed specifically at search engines in terms of crawling etc

As Earl says:
A dynamic page will very rarely do as well as a static page in the engines.

Which is exactly the confirmation of my thoughts in the OP

Thank you guys

 

[DesignerNick]

Why would they be crawled any different? As long as there is a good navigation structure I can't see any issue?

By looking the same I meant that a dynamic site would be no way different to a static page if it was done properly and used SEO Friendly URL's which yours does.

How many sites are 100% static nowadays? As long as the dynamic pages are done properly and as said dont have loads of duplicate content they are fine unless you have stupid amounts of mysql queries which slows the page load time down.

I wouldn't really worry about it too much as long as the on page is good.

 

[SEO Lady]

I wouldn't really worry about it too much as long as the on page is good.

Thank you I agree - I have advised the client there are no negatives/penalties involved in terms of SEO, and not to get hung up on this as the rest of the site has had full SEO on the static pages.

 

[DesignerNick]

Damn I outstayed my edit time...

The best thing to do is try it and find out for yourself as with anything in SEO. If you go off blog posts from years ago or rumours then you will never know for yourself or learn will you?

 

[DesignerNick]

Thank you I agree - I have advised the client there are no negatives/penalties involved in terms of SEO, and not to get hung up on this as the rest of the site has had full SEO on the static pages.

Make sure that the on page is decent too. Different meta descs, titles, h1's on each page

If they all have company names in the title and h1 and some different meta desc they will do well for the longtails.

 

[awebapart.com]

A client's site populates registered user's profile pages by way of dynamic content.

Would this be indexed differently / crawled differently by Google as opposed to a static HTML page?

My thoughts are that it would not be crawled in full as potentially the info could change and be refreshed constantly?

I'm assuming this is not a simple question about 1 site dynamically creating pages from the sites's own database. At least I hope not! That answer is fairly simple, you've only got to look at google indexing this forum, e.g. forum threads updating regularly, for that answer. The answer is if the site is architected in a similar way to this forum, php sending out html on a fairly static (unchanging) url, then that's usually fine.

Here is one other possible interpretation I'm reading from this question...

User profile pages that pull in data from external websites, e.g. a profile page that pulls in and displays the user's latest tweets from twitter, their recent facebook updates, their recent blog entries, etc.

The answer to this particular question depends upon how the external data is pulled in. If it is pulled in server-side in say PHP, then output as html, then it should be indexed. If it is pulled in browser-side from Javascript in the HTML page, then there is less likelihood that data would be indexed.

And finally, if the profile pages are private, like they are in this forum, so that only logged in members can see them, then it is more likely that google wont be indexing them anyway.

 

[loubycee]

I was under the impression search engines have trouble crawling and indexing them, unless they (google) have changed the way they index those pages now...

 

[DotNetWebs]

I was under the impression search engines have trouble crawling and indexing them, unless they (google) have changed the way they index those pages now...

But what EXACTLY do you mean by that? Without expanding on it the statement in meaningless.

There are lots of good technical comments in this thread explain which types of dynamic content may give problems to search engines and which types will make no difference whatsoever.

Do you agree or disagree with these 'technical' posts?

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

I also think that static web pages are indexed better as compare to dynamic pages.

And another one.....

Regards

Dotty

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I also think that static web pages are indexed better as compare to dynamic pages.

Which is why there is so much confusion. People who give opinions without knowing what they are talking about.

 

[loubycee]

okay.

So teach me a lesson then, what I have learned about it may be limited.

I believe that pages with symbols that are rapidly changed, page numbers are increased as well as being constantly updated are difficult, because se's cannot always pick them up, therefore have trouble indexing them.

I believe that static pages whose content is updated but whose titles make sense, ie words, then they can be easily picked up by se's looking for relevant content, titles that make sense and relate to the content on the page.

I do not, however, believe that dynamic pages are wrong, they may simply be troublesome for that reason. Massive companies that are known already use them, because people will click directly onto the site rather than through a search engine - they are likely to conduct an internal search to find what they are looking for

Next use them. Vodafone don't. so no strict rule on it is there?

Just saying.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...I believe that pages with symbols that are rapidly changed, page numbers are increased as well as being constantly updated are difficult, because se's cannot always pick them up, therefore have trouble indexing them....

There is some truth in all of that but that is really just one (or a few) example(s) of dynamic page.

A dynamic web page is simply one that has been 'assembled' by an application using content that is liable to change. As has been mentioned several times in this thread that does not mean that it can't appear to all intents and purposes like a 'static' page.

The OP was asking about a site that "populates registered user's profile pages by way of dynamic content"

All you can read into that is that some of the content is automatically placed on the page.

The success of these pages will depend on how this is achieved rather than the simply whether it's 'dynamic' or not.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DesignerNick]

Vodafone do use them = https://freesim.vodafone.co.uk/orders/add?package_id=1&tracker=58f8dj&keyword=freesim

I would think nearly all big companies would use dynamic pages, unless they want to create a html page for every single page (can you imagine amazon doing this?)

Half the time, how would you be able to tell if they are just given .html extensions? I think you are confusing dynamic urls where they have ?id=pagename , which nowadays most change to pagename.html anyway.

I agree with what you say about being updated constantly, but sometimes fresh content is a good thing for SEO.

I have a site that was made from a database, banged a few variables out and made a fair few pages. It has over 30k pages indexed in Google, gets between 3-4k unique hits per day. Google crawls an average of 17,105 pages per day from this site.

There is so much wrong information going on in this thread it is shocking, some from SEO people too.

 

[loubycee]

I thank you both for your responses which have outlined a few things that I was blinkered to

 

I would think nearly all big companies would use dynamic pages, unless they want to create a html page for every single page (can you imagine amazon doing this?)

Bad examples they don't need to.

Earl

 

[DesignerNick]

Bad examples they don't need to.

Earl

So what big companies sit and make thousands of html pages individually and dont use databases? Can you explain why a static page is better?