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&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?

"darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.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?

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

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

On 30 Nov 2006 13:54:24 -0800, "darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.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;toolt ype=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?

I'd go for the re-write.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

darnel wrote:

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

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

>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?


In your particular example, as long as both are indexed, there will be no
difference in ranking because both important keywords - 'woodworking' and
'powertools' are included in both dynamic and static URLs. However,
popularity of mod_rewrite method of changing URLs comes from the fact that
most dynamic applications create awfully looking URLs WITHOUT any keywords
in them, such as forum.php?threadID=12387193871298. You would really have
wanted to change it to something like
/powertools-woodworking/12387193871298 for search engines to have another
clue for what the page is about.

This does not really give you a huge boost in rankings simply because URLs
are easy to manipulate and search engines know it but when every little
tiny bit counts, you may gain some advantage by using cleaner URLs with
keywords in them

--
Cheers,
Dmitri
See Site Sig Below



--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
| with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
| http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
+------------------------------------------------+

"www.1-script.com" <info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com> wrote in message
news:jsNbh.201240$c42.146337@fe02.news.easynews.co m...
> darnel wrote:
>
> > A)
> > some_script.php?Subcategory=Power+Tools&amp;toolty pe=woodworking
>
> > B)
> > /sitemap/Powertools/woodworking.html ....or whatever.
>
> >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?
>
>
> In your particular example, as long as both are indexed, there will be no
> difference in ranking because both important keywords - 'woodworking' and
> 'powertools' are included in both dynamic and static URLs. However,
> popularity of mod_rewrite method of changing URLs comes from the fact that
> most dynamic applications create awfully looking URLs WITHOUT any keywords
> in them, such as forum.php?threadID=12387193871298. You would really have
> wanted to change it to something like
> /powertools-woodworking/12387193871298 for search engines to have another
> clue for what the page is about.
>
> This does not really give you a huge boost in rankings simply because URLs
> are easy to manipulate and search engines know it but when every little
> tiny bit counts, you may gain some advantage by using cleaner URLs with
> keywords in them
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dmitri
> See Site Sig Below
>
>
>
> --
> +------------------------------------------------+
> | Follow alt.internet.search-engines threads |
> | with your Firefox Live Bookmarks! Set it up at |
> | http://www.1-script.com/forums/ |
> +------------------------------------------------+
>

John, Bill & Dmitri are all correct.

In our (www.usewho.com) situation we have many pages that in true form would
be like this: http://www.usewho.com/index.php?sear...dworking+tools

We use ISAPI rewrite to make this: www.usewho.com/workworking-tools.htm and
hopefully this is seen as more search engine friendly.

I take Johns point though that bots may be friendlier to dynamically
produced pages as they do hammer the server more. We have over 200,000
'pages' that we present to google with a sitemap (sitemap index + sitemap
files) so sometimes the server does get blasted.

Regards
Vance - Bristol - UK
www.usewho.com/seo.htm

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

> "darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.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.

Jan Paul van de Berg schreef:
> Op 30 Nov 2006 23:34:14 GMT schreef John Bokma:
>
>> "darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.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.

Thats not the problem, change host!

--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

John Bokma wrote:
>> But what's the problem with making nice URLs?

None really. I'm essentially bidding a job. The owner of
an up and coming website has asked me to evaluate
a site, make an SEO site-remodeling proposal
and then do a cost estimate and cost benefit analysis.

It's possible this person would have been better off working with a \
bonafide SEO professional, but he asked me and I'm trying to
do the best job I can.

John Bokma also said:
"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. "

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?"