Search Friendly Url

[new.Matrix]

Hi @ll!

 

I'm writing rewrite rules and now I ask me wich kind is better. This one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren/teige/hefenteig/index.php

 

or this one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren_teige_hefenteig/index.php

 

Cause I read that searchengines like google rate websites on the base of the deep of path too, so the secondary link is better. Or what do you mean?

[UKJay]

Hi @ll!

 

I'm writing rewrite rules and now I ask me wich kind is better. This one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren/teige/hefenteig/index.php

 

or this one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren_teige_hefenteig/index.php

 

Cause I read that searchengines like google rate websites on the base of the deep of path too, so the secondary link is better. Or what do you mean?

Better still would be

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren-teige-hefenteig/index.htm

 

as google prefers .htm endings to dynamic endings like .php

[Jack_mcs]

Hi @ll!

 

I'm writing rewrite rules and now I ask me wich kind is better. This one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren/teige/hefenteig/index.php

 

or this one:

 

http://www.xxxxxxxx.de/backwaren_teige_hefenteig/index.php

 

Cause I read that searchengines like google rate websites on the base of the deep of path too, so the secondary link is better. Or what do you mean?

The file type makes no difference whatsoever. What matters is how deep the search engines have to go to find your pages. If you start off with your site in a sub-directory, you have one count against you right up front. So it is better to move the shop to the root.

 

Jack

[UKJay]

The file type makes no difference whatsoever. What matters is how deep the search engines have to go to find your pages. If you start off with your site in a sub-directory, you have one count against you right up front. So it is better to move the shop to the root.

 

Jack

I got to disagree Jack with regards to file type - there may be little difference in URLs ending solely in .php but once you start passing variables via URLs then you will suffer in SEO terms. I ran an experiement with two very similar sites last year, both launched on the same date, with similar amount of data (approx 12,000 database driven pages), both SEO'd in exactly the same way with the exception that one site passed variables via the URL and the other had the URL's rewritten via .htaccess to more 'friendly' URL's ending in .htm.

 

Result, the friendly URL site was fully indexed in Google within 6 weeks - thats all 12,000 pages included. The site with dynamic URLs has approximately 1000 indexed after the same period and even after a further 7 months is not fully indexed.

 

I agree about the sub directories, although some of that can be countered by using the .htaccess files to rewrite and redirect traffic to apparently higher directories.

[Guest]

I got to disagree Jack with regards to file type - there may be little difference in URLs ending solely in .php but once you start passing variables via URLs then you will suffer in SEO terms. I ran an experiement with two very similar sites last year, both launched on the same date, with similar amount of data (approx 12,000 database driven pages), both SEO'd in exactly the same way with the exception that one site passed variables via the URL and the other had the URL's rewritten via .htaccess to more 'friendly' URL's ending in .htm.

 

Result, the friendly URL site was fully indexed in Google within 6 weeks - thats all 12,000 pages included. The site with dynamic URLs has approximately 1000 indexed after the same period and even after a further 7 months is not fully indexed.

 

File Type doesn't mean anything. Because you can have a fully converted url and the SEO simply appends the extension. You probably talking about the converted link where Jack was talking for just the type.

 

Eg:

www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.php

www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.htm

 

There is no difference for the 2 converted links. And php extension doesn't say anything. It doesn't even imply the server is running php. It can be .jsp and have some seo module setting up extensions of the generated links with .php.

[UKJay]

File Type doesn't mean anything. Because you can have a fully converted url and the SEO simply appends the extension. You probably talking about the converted link where Jack was talking for just the type.

 

Eg:

www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.php

www.mysite321/index.php?cPath=5&products_id=8 => www.mysite321/the_matrix.htm

 

There is no difference for the 2 converted links. And php extension doesn't say anything. It doesn't even imply the server is running php. It can be .jsp and have some seo module setting up extensions of the generated links with .php.

Yeah, fair comment - just re read it and I see what you mean. Got to forgive me, its a hot day and my brain is a little over heated.