Static vs. Dynamic as it relates to SEO

[Muddy]

I currently have a static site which has TONS of products on it and the potential to add 10 times as many. It has been very labor intensive to add all these products over time (manually changing SKU numbers, weights, descriptions, prices, etc. in the shopping cart forms in HTML one at a time) and since I'd like to add many more, I'm thinking about making it database driven for obvious reasons. The problem is that the site enjoys excellent ranking on Google for many of its pages using specific keywords or phrases and even is number 1 and 2 respectively for two very general keywords. Clearly I don't want to jeopardize that! However if I change to database, my URLs will change from www.mysite.com/ladders.htm (for example) to www.mysite.com/thumbnail.asp?cid=17. This is just an example of a secondary page and the string will be even longer with more gibberish on the tertiary and deeper pages.

So...my question is: Should I be worried about the database URLs affecting my ranking? And what about all the static URLs that are currently indexed? Not only in Google, but all the links on other sites back to my site will go to the old static URLs.

Should I just continue to build the site and add new products the old-fashioned way? Sure would be easier to add stuff with a database, not to mention overall management of the site...what to do...what to do...

[semaphoreseo]

well, when we point on seo relation, static site is more se friendly than dynamic sites.
static sites can helps us with some sem activities but with dynamic url's we have some limitations for sem activities.

[crimson_river]

yup static is the seo friendly between the two , and also take note of the url , you have the controls in statics page 's url rather than dynamic....

[Myamsterdam]

it will harm somewhere your SERPS but you just continuing with your on page SEO, all will be fine slowly slowly.
don't b afraid

cheers

[Muddy]

What if I left all the static pages up too and threw 301 redirects on them all? Would that work?

[~DaRk-EyE~]

They come in two different main advantages...

DYNAMIC PAGES - More manageable and makes your work a lot easier...

STATIC PAGES - More SEO friendly and gives you the luxury to have great chances to rank on SERP....

Now its up for you to choose on what you're willing to sacrifice....

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by Muddy

What if I left all the static pages up too and threw 301 redirects on them all? Would that work?

And what about this, is it a possibility?

[pinkfluffybunny]

The engines have become more long url friendly. The problem with dynamic sites is the programmers usually don't have a clue about SEO. They pick the dynamic title, descriptic and and keywords.

I like to use a cart that allows me to type in my own for each individual product.

There is a cheap cart with a cheap seo mod that I use for smaller companies that works great for seo "candypress". The seo mod was $20.00 the last time I bought it.

Like with any seo the more specific you are the better chance on conversion and better chance of placing higher.

Here's an example of CandyPress (shipping charges on raw product put this lady out of business - but the site was a freebie)

Motorcycle Rider Ducky - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...y+&btnG=Search

Biker ducky soap - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ap&btnG=Search

Military Soap - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ap&btnG=Search

name your products carefully and put in the seo and the seo mod will work for you. Notice that I also used static pages and linked into the cart (just because.....lol)

every product made it into the top 10 in Google.
Nothing special done - nothing to brag about - just the seo mod up against companies with no seo mod.

Candypress is a good little cart when you pop the seo mod in

[Muddy]

Thanks for all your comments!

PFB, like you mention, I've been told by proponents of dynamic sites that the URLs will make no difference. "Otherwise why would so many dynamic sites have good rankings on Google?", they say. Also, like you recommend, the storefront software I'm using does in fact allow you to customize the meta tags for each page you create. If it is true that search engines rely predominantly on the meta tags now and not the URLs like they used to, then the only question that remains is my second one. How to handle the traffic already pointed at my existing static URLs.

On the other hand, it seems that folks here are saying that static pages DO rank better than dynamic... Historically, I've always thought that to be true and for that reason have always picked domain names that related directly to the product. For example, greenwidgetsonline.com or green-widgets-for-sale.com as opposed to widgetsrus.com or widgetmasters.com.

[HostingITrust]

Since your urls are already indexed in google and other search engines, I would recommend that you do not interfere with this website and let it be the way it is. You can book a new domain and make that website dynamic with friendly urls.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by HostingITrust

Since your urls are already indexed in google and other search engines, I would recommend that you do not interfere with this website and let it be the way it is. You can book a new domain and make that website dynamic with friendly urls.

You know what, that's a hell of a good idea! I doubt I could match this domain name though since I got it years ago when there were still a few good ones available.

Also, how do I make friendly URLs? Won't they just lay as they fall with the long string of symbols etc.?

[pinkfluffybunny]

Originally Posted by Muddy

I currently have a static site which has TONS of products on it and the potential to add 10 times as many. It has been very labor intensive to add all these products over time (manually changing SKU numbers, weights, descriptions, prices, etc. in the shopping cart forms in HTML one at a time) and since I'd like to add many more, I'm thinking about making it database driven for obvious reasons. The problem is that the site enjoys excellent ranking on Google for many of its pages using specific keywords or phrases and even is number 1 and 2 respectively for two very general keywords. Clearly I don't want to jeopardize that! However if I change to database, my URLs will change from www.mysite.com/ladders.htm (for example) to www.mysite.com/thumbnail.asp?cid=17. This is just an example of a secondary page and the string will be even longer with more gibberish on the tertiary and deeper pages.

So...my question is: Should I be worried about the database URLs affecting my ranking? And what about all the static URLs that are currently indexed? Not only in Google, but all the links on other sites back to my site will go to the old static URLs.

Should I just continue to build the site and add new products the old-fashioned way? Sure would be easier to add stuff with a database, not to mention overall management of the site...what to do...what to do...

post your link I'll take a look.

I'll run a position report see where you are and make recommendations.
In most cases you can keep the html pages and link into the cart if the html has position.

example - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...r+&btnG=Search

you don't lose anything - you just gain a position - one and two instead of just one.

[Muddy]

Oh I see, in which case the dynamic gobbledeegook is just added to the end of the existing URL? Can't see how switching to a database could hurt then...

[pinkfluffybunny]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Oh I see, in which case the dynamic gobbledeegook is just added to the end of the existing URL? Can't see how switching to a database could hurt then...

Not quite, you leave the old html page there, but instead of a actual buy now, you describe the product in more detail then link into the cart so they can buy.

Basically you just change your html page so it is a doorway to you individual product. Google likes it, gives you 2 positions instead of one.
more info for customers is better in google's eyes.
\
But they also want to make it easy for the customer to find exactly what they want, so google will put the buy page first alot of times and the descriptive page second (if you do the seo right and let the spider know which is which..

[gostats]

If You are going dynamic, ensure that you don't have an duplicate content - that's a major issue for search engines.

Most modern search engines these days have no problem with dynamic content urls. I would suggest that you make the urls more readable if only for the humans who are using them.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by gostats

If You are going dynamic, ensure that you don't have an duplicate content - that's a major issue for search engines.

Most modern search engines these days have no problem with dynamic content urls. I would suggest that you make the urls more readable if only for the humans who are using them.

Thanks for the advice. Just how do you make the URLs more readable for humans though? How can you control how the URL reads if it's dynamic? As you can see, I have a lot to learn!

[Muddy]

Ahhh, I see. By the way PFB, I PMd you the link...did you get it?

[gostats]

No, I didn't. Or are you directing that to pinkfluffybunny?

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by gostats

No, I didn't. Or are you directing that to pinkfluffybunny?

Sorry, yeah you and I must have clicked submit at the exact same time! I edited to show I meant PFB.

[phoenix06007]

SEs prepared the static sites though it will be no problem if you use dynamic site. But both are acceptable though there are difference. Url rewrite is also available as option if URL has concern.