php vs html for SEO

[Dawgy]

simple question

i have a choice of doing a site in php/mysql or static html

either way actually works out to about the same amount of time setting up the site, maybe just a bit more work on the static html option for future updates, but not that much.

so my question is, which would be best for SEO?

i think the answer is obvious, but i just wanted some other opinions before i spend the next 2 days knee deep in code

[Lane]

you can run php as .html extension, so from an SE spider point of view it wouldn't look any different than a static page.


now where is my money?

[hyper]

i used url rewriting for my php in .htaccess so i can set my links to .html but it actually goes to .php



everything was spidered in google but not inktomi

[arial]

PHP is god.

[Kingfish]

php doesn?t spider as well as plain html. If you are building your site for SE hits then html is the only way to go.

[FATPad]

Originally posted by Lane
you can run php as .html extension, so from an SE spider point of view it wouldn't look any different than a static page.


now where is my money?

This is exactly right.

Setup your server to parse html files for php code. It'll show as a .html file, but it'll be dynamic content. Best of both worlds.

[hyper]

Originally posted by hyper
i used url rewriting for my php in .htaccess so i can set my links to .html but it actually goes to .php



everything was spidered in google but not inktomi

thats why i did the url rewriting and now i am in all search engines

[- Jesus Christ -]

In terms of google. Freshbot will not list files with the .PHP extention other than that and links with more than 2 variables in them there is no problem.

[$5 submissions]

html for the pages BUT for generating link to's either use a desktop app or php script. Also, readable keyword patterns are key.

[ModelPerfect]

Does the same apply for .asp?

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally posted by ModelPerfect
Does the same apply for .asp?

yes all extentions associated with nonstatic content are treated differently by SEs

[camsource]

I would stick with HTML

[ModelPerfect]

Originally posted by - Jesus Christ -
yes all extentions associated with nonstatic content are treated differently by SEs

Hmm. I use .asp on my index page. Bad move, huh?

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally posted by ModelPerfect


Hmm. I use .asp on my index page. Bad move, huh?

well if the page is accessed via "http://blah.com/" then no the bot will not be able to tell unless your apache is set to diliver the content type via headers.

[WiredGuy]

Originally posted by Dawgy
simple question

i have a choice of doing a site in php/mysql or static html

either way actually works out to about the same amount of time setting up the site, maybe just a bit more work on the static html option for future updates, but not that much.

so my question is, which would be best for SEO?

i think the answer is obvious, but i just wanted some other opinions before i spend the next 2 days knee deep in code

I answered this to you over ICQ. This was the thread you were referring to right?

WG

[ModelPerfect]

Thanks...

[Dugan]

Originally posted by Kingfish
php doesn?t spider as well as plain html. If you are building your site for SE hits then html is the only way to go.

if your server is fast enough, and your script is clean enough, it shouldn't take more time to load the php page than html, other than that i don't see it making a difference on spidering