dynamic urls and seo

[tdd1984]

Hey guys say I have links out there that are www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=42
www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=432
www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=422
www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=423
www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=4234

now will I get link love to testing.php and the anchor text that was used on that link? see what I'm saying?

[minstrel]

One parameter in the URL should be fine as long as that's not a session ID.

Update to our webmaster guidelines
By Vanessa Fox
Wed, Oct 25 2006

As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:

However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

[tdd1984]

yes I know that, but what I'm asking is there a way to always redirect .php?name=32
.php?name=31
.php?name=33

now redirect them to .php, but be able to use the php global get array to pull the query url string

[king2163]

does any body notice that dynamic pages has lesser Pr then static one.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by king2163

does any body notice that dynamic pages has lesser Pr then static one.

That's always been true for public PR and dynamic pages.

However, it doesn't mean anything at all, really. It doesn't stop those pages from being indexed and ranking well. It's just the nature of the URL for dynamic pages.

[Johan007]

From a search point of view there is nothing wrong with a well written dynamic URL and there never was. I have argued against Google's own technical guides and Matt Cutts and it seems I was right.

[oseymour]

I also think that having a shorter url makes it easier for visitors to remember it and link to it....

[Johan007]

Originally Posted by oseymour

I also think that having a shorter url makes it easier for visitors to remember it and link to it....

When was the last time you did this? Users can bookmark or use web search to find articles or products they have read and this is a far more common practice. But we pushing this off topic.

[lucia]

People often share links on email lists. Long urls tend to break more often. Shorter urls are better.

[oseymour]

Originally Posted by Johan007

When was the last time you did this? Users can bookmark or use web search to find articles or products they have read and this is a far more common practice. But we pushing this off topic.

Are you kidding me? Are you asking me when was the last time I linked to an article or when was the last time users linked to an article.....either one get's the same "are you kidding me response"

I do it all the time....and so do a lot of other people on internet. People link to and IM each other links all the time....who want's to deal with a long messy url? A short url with a keyword in it gives me a preview of the page before I even get to it

[RNK1.com]

but doesn't search engines give more importance to static urls instead of dynamic ones

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by RNK1.com

but doesn't search engines give more importance to static urls instead of dynamic ones

No.

Google Facts & Fiction

Fiction: Sites are not included in Google's index if they use ASP (or some other non-html file-type.)
Fact: We're able to index most types of pages and files with very few exceptions. A sampling of the file extensions we're able to index includes: pdf, asp, jsp, html, shtml, xml, doc, xls, ppt, rtf, wks, lwp, wri, swf, cfm, and php.

Google and Dynamic Pages

If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.

Allow search bots to crawl your sites without session IDs or arguments that track their path through the site. These techniques are useful for tracking individual user behavior, but the access pattern of bots is entirely different. Using these techniques may result in incomplete indexing of your site, as bots may not be able to eliminate URLs that look different but actually point to the same page.

Update to Google and dynamic pages

As the web continues to change and evolve, our algorithms change right along with it. Recently, as a result of one of those algorithmic changes, we've modified our webmaster guidelines. Previously, these stated:

However, we've recently removed that technical guideline, and now index URLs that contain that parameter. So if your site uses a dynamic structure that generates it, don't worry about rewriting it -- we'll accept it just fine as is. Keep in mind, however, that dynamic URLs with a large number of parameters may be problematic for search engine crawlers in general, so rewriting dynamic URLs into user-friendly versions is always a good practice when that option is available to you. If you can, keeping the number of URL parameters to one or two may make it more likely that search engines will crawl your dynamic urls.

[Jesse Vlasveld]

Google up on mod_rewrite, and edit your website's urls the way you'd like to have them.

i.e. www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=42 can become www.mydomain.com/testing/42/

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by oseymour

I do it all the time....and so do a lot of other people on internet. People link to and IM each other links all the time....who want's to deal with a long messy url? A short url with a keyword in it gives me a preview of the page before I even get to it

Nonsense. I send links to articles to friends or colleagues quite frequently and whether it's a long URL or a short sassy one doesn't make a damn but of difference.

It's called "cut-and-paste". And at the receiving end, it's called "click the link".

We're not talking about back-breaking physical labor here...

[Jesse Vlasveld]

Some people prefer to be able to see what the link is leading to before they click it. For that people an url with a keyword (or more) in it is preferred.

[minstrel]

It doesn't matter a damn to me. I consider (1) who sent me the link and (2) why and then (3) the domain name. I don't care about anything else.

[Jesse Vlasveld]

That is your opinion, and I respect that. But you could also think outside your box, and realise that some people do prefer shorter (keyword, etc etc) links.

You don't give a damn, 30 other people dont give a damn, 30 people do give a damn. This is a discussion based on opinion, and it can go on forever.

[Johan007]

Originally Posted by minstrel

It doesn't matter a damn to me. I consider (1) who sent me the link and (2) why and then (3) the domain name. I don't care about anything else.

Well said. A keyword in the URL makes no difference to user.

Originally Posted by Jesse Vlasveld

That is your opinion, and I respect that. But you could also think outside your box, and realise that some people do prefer shorter (keyword, etc etc) links.

Not some and maybe just a tiny minority. When was the last time you hand typed a page URL? I agree top level pages like BBC.co.uk/Films is common but not the articles themselves.

Originally Posted by Jesse Vlasveld

i.e. www.mydomain.com/testing.php?id=42 can become www.mydomain.com/testing/42/

Why? There is no point and there never was. Your just waisting your time doing this.

Originally Posted by RNK1.com

but doesn't search engines give more importance to static urls instead of dynamic ones

And you believed who ever told you? Have you ever seen the Search Engine results pages they are full of query string URLs? I can not believe how wrong Google could be over the issue and goes to show the gap between the techies and PR department including Matt Cutts who I have proven wrong before.