frequently asked faq

"darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Sandy (darnel) wonders:
"So what? If the site still gets indexed once or twice a month, what
difference (to the website owner) does that make?"

Depends, if I update part of my site I don't want it to take 14-30 days to
get into Google.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

John Bokma wrote:

Depends, if I update part of my site I don't want it to take 14-30 days to
get into Google.

....sure, that makes sense too. If the larger interval between page
calls
(while Google does it's indexing) is large enough, then it
(Google's handling of dynamic links) could mean static-looking
links have measurable value.

But Google seems to go through my 700-800 page site in the blink
of a frog's eye. Two or three such blinks wouldn't matter a bit.
Weeks or months, on the other hand, would matter a lot.

Nobody (certainly not me) seems to know the real answers to
these SEO fine-tuning questions. Most of it seems to be
a creative combination of trial and error with common sense and black
magic.

"darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
Depends, if I update part of my site I don't want it to take 14-30
days to get into Google.

...sure, that makes sense too. If the larger interval between page
calls
(while Google does it's indexing) is large enough, then it
(Google's handling of dynamic links) could mean static-looking
links have measurable value.

But Google seems to go through my 700-800 page site in the blink
of a frog's eye. Two or three such blinks wouldn't matter a bit.
Weeks or months, on the other hand, would matter a lot.

Nobody (certainly not me) seems to know the real answers to
these SEO fine-tuning questions.

I gave another good reason: http://example.com/frogs/eye/ has less clutter
compared to http://example.com/foobar.cgi?animal=frog&part=eye.

Most of it seems to be
a creative combination of trial and error with common sense and black
magic.

Yup, there are a lot of SEO myths, but I wouldn't consider use clean URLs
that don't look dynamic to be one of them.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

darnel wrote:

I have heard many people say (some in this group) that search
engines "do not like links that smell like dynamically generated pages,
IE where the URL is loaded with descriptive GET parameters, like:

A)
some_script.php?Subcategory=Power+Tools&amp;toolty pe=woodworking

People who have supported that assertion often suggest using
mod_rewrite tricks so links like the above can be displayed as
something
more like:

B)
/sitemap/Powertools/woodworking.html ....or whatever.

And yet, dynamic-looking links, like example B do show up
in keyword searches all the time--at least in Google searches anyway.

So is there any optimization difference, at Google, between URL(A)
and URL(B) above? Both types are indexed. Will the static-looking link
get a slight page rank advantage?

Or is the original prejudice against dynamic-looking links now a myth?

Rewriting the URLs is *generally* preferable. You don't have to rewrite and
redirect every page at once. Consider doing the main category sections
first, and working onward in sections from there.

Be sure that the old URLs 301 redirect to the new ones or you may encounter
problems. Be sure you understand what you are doing. Keep a sharp eye on
the Google Webmaster Control Panel and the access logs after doing it
(where is Googlebot going after the rewrites?). Also monitor the number of
Supplemental Results that Google has indexed so that you can catch problems
early (actual pages vs. cached, etc.).

Op Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:12:51 GMT schreef Big Bill:

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:15:11 +0100, Jan Paul van de Berg
janp (AT) ulvandebe (DOT) rg> wrote:

Op 30 Nov 2006 23:34:14 GMT schreef John Bokma:

"darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:


I have heard many people say (some in this group) that search
engines "do not like links that smell like dynamically generated pages,
IE where the URL is loaded with descriptive GET parameters, like:

A)
some_script.php?Subcategory=Power+Tools&amp;toolty pe=woodworking

People who have supported that assertion often suggest using
mod_rewrite tricks so links like the above can be displayed as
something
more like:

B)
/sitemap/Powertools/woodworking.html ....or whatever.

And yet, dynamic-looking links, like example B do show up
in keyword searches all the time--at least in Google searches anyway.

So is there any optimization difference, at Google, between URL(A)
and URL(B) above? Both types are indexed. Will the static-looking link
get a slight page rank advantage?

Probably yes, also bause powetools and woodworking are not surrounded by
clutter. What Google does, or at least that's what I always read between
the lines, is visit URLs it considers to be dynamically with more time
between each URL in order not to overload the server.

Or is the original prejudice against dynamic-looking links now a myth?

Doubt it. But what's the problem with making nice URLs?

Problem is to find an url rewrite thingie that you can use if you have a
windows server where the admin doesn't allow you to install stuff on.

Move hosts then.

Most url rewriting I can find is on linux/php. Do you know of any that can
be installed on windows?

"Jan Paul van de Berg" <janp (AT) ulvandebe (DOT) rg> wrote

Op Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:12:51 GMT schreef Big Bill:

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:15:11 +0100, Jan Paul van de Berg
janp (AT) ulvandebe (DOT) rg> wrote:

Op 30 Nov 2006 23:34:14 GMT schreef John Bokma:

"darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:


I have heard many people say (some in this group) that search
engines "do not like links that smell like dynamically generated
pages,
IE where the URL is loaded with descriptive GET parameters, like:

A)
some_script.php?Subcategory=Power+Tools&amp;toolty pe=woodworking

People who have supported that assertion often suggest using
mod_rewrite tricks so links like the above can be displayed as
something
more like:

B)
/sitemap/Powertools/woodworking.html ....or whatever.

And yet, dynamic-looking links, like example B do show up
in keyword searches all the time--at least in Google searches anyway.

So is there any optimization difference, at Google, between URL(A)
and URL(B) above? Both types are indexed. Will the static-looking
link
get a slight page rank advantage?

Probably yes, also bause powetools and woodworking are not surrounded
by
clutter. What Google does, or at least that's what I always read
between
the lines, is visit URLs it considers to be dynamically with more time
between each URL in order not to overload the server.

Or is the original prejudice against dynamic-looking links now a
myth?

Doubt it. But what's the problem with making nice URLs?

Problem is to find an url rewrite thingie that you can use if you have a
windows server where the admin doesn't allow you to install stuff on.

Move hosts then.

Most url rewriting I can find is on linux/php. Do you know of any that can
be installed on windows?

http://www.isapirewrite.com/

Regards
Vance