[zach]

Hi

I was wondering whether static URLS are better than dynamic URLs for search engines. I think that Matt Cutt said that Google dosen't care, but I am not sure that having a dynamic url is really the same (especially for other search engines).

Does anyone really know how URL format's affect search engine rankings?

Zach

[Paula62]

My understanding has always been that statis urls fare much better than dynamic ones for two reasons - first, search engines generally prefer them, but second, and I think more importantly, a static url may not stay up long enough to be crawled.

I don't know an extreme amount about the formulas used by various search engines, but i do know Apache makes a tool to rewrite dynamic urls into static ones, so I assume there is an advantage or the tool wouldn't be available.

[triumph]

There is a miniscule benefit to static urls that have keyword text in them. Other than that, though there is no benefit. Actually in my experience unless you are extremely careful, mod rewriting urls, especially on forums, can create MORE duplicate link issues.

[Slashmire]

I would have thought that there might have been differences between the two...but then again if Mr. Cutt says "no" then he's most likely right.

[Paula62]

Well it certainly makes things easier if there's no difference. The fewer variables the better.

[tshugo]

Originally Posted by zach

Hi

I was wondering whether static URLS are better than dynamic URLs for search engines. I think that Matt Cutt said that Google dosen't care, but I am not sure that having a dynamic url is really the same (especially for other search engines).

Does anyone really know how URL format's affect search engine rankings?

Zach

I would personally go for the static urls. Faster load, easier and so on.

[Slashmire]

So static URL actually really do statistically go and load faster than non-static one?