Costom 404 are NOT the same as Static |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Bruce11
Newbie Joined: 16-May-2007 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 16-May-2007 at 6:20pm |
Hi all.
Having Keyword-Rich names for the pages is NOT the same thing as having STATIC html pages. For every http request, the server returns a "Last-Modified"" Header, which tell the browser (and the search engine) when the page was modified. An ASP page will always return a very recent date. Another rather important HTTP Header, is the "Expires:" Header. It tells the browser when this information expires. If you want to use have keyword-rich page names, it might be that the (not-really-static) category-product-name.html is not better than viewCategory.asp?id=33&name=Nice+Keyword+Here! A better way to use it, it to use caching to your advantage. Here are some simple rules:
I'm not sure what is the best way that search-engines like and what they consider important. A few very important things to keep in mind:
|
|
ProductCart
Admin Group ProductCart Team Joined: 01-October-2003 Status: Offline Points: 135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Bruce, we are not sure how to read your posting. Of course using a URL rewrite tool is not the same as having static pages. This is true regardless of what technique you use, whether it's mod_rewrite built into Apache, or an ISAPI filter. The technique mentioned in our forum provides correct server responses depending on whether the page does exist (product or category page -> 200 response code) or not (wrong URL -> 404 response code). Content is updated constantly on an e-commerce store (e.g. "Units in stock" shown on the product details page), so we are not sure how caching could be used. Could you elaborate? As far as we know using the custom 404 error page in the way it is used in the code we supplied does not violate any "best practices". If you disagree, please provide detailed information on which "best practice" you believe this violates and we will be happy to look into it. The bottom line is that URLs that contain a product or category name do provide valuable information to a search engine crawler, as the file name becomes an additional, correct indicator of the content displayed on the page. I say "correct" because the product and category names are used to build the name of the HTML page, and therefore are always, automatically consistent with the content of the page delivered to the browser. According to our research, the URLs generated using the technique mentioned above rank better than the corresponding ASP pages. We use this technique ourselves on our own software store. If you disagree, please provide evidence of it. Edited by earlyimp - 17-May-2007 at 1:21am |
|
thedeacon
Groupie Joined: 09-July-2006 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sure, they aren't static pages, but neither a search engine or a human visitor can easily tell the difference. What's better is that neither really have a reason to care enough to find out if the htm page is dynamic or static, either. Google ranks dynamic asp pages *much* lower than a root level htm page. That along with the category name being placed in the URL makes the minimal effort required to upload the statis redirect files very worthwhile, especially considering it doesn't cost anything! -Rich http://www.hipepc.com Edited by thedeacon - 16-May-2007 at 10:38pm |
|
Bruce11
Newbie Joined: 16-May-2007 Status: Offline Points: 0 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
OK, I agree that HTML page names are better than asp pages.
Let me clarify a few things; For us ecommerce store owners, all that matters is that we get better placement in the search engines (HTML page names helps with that and it does not violate any "best pratices"). But, we can do better than that, and here's what I mean: Let the search engine really think that the page is static AND let the search engine know that the page information (price, stock) might expire (in a day or 2). Static is good for the environment! (search engines, that it), they love it, and will eat a mouthful of static sites. Static is good for your health! (your hosting server). Dynamic means a real-time lookup in the database for the price, stock information, many many many variables on the page, hence the name "dynamic". If there would be a way to serve the customer something static but fresh, that would good for all of us. That is why, I want to propose something:
This makes the page load time somewhat longer for the first time fur-coats.html is served (saving the static file), but on the 2nd time, it flies. I've seen this approach before, here are some links: http://www.theukwebdesigncompany.com/articles/php-caching.ph p http://www.devshed.com/c/a/PHP/Output-Caching-with-PHP/ Enough of me now... |
|
geoff
Newbie Joined: 15-January-2006 Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Bruce11 Very nice post - I actually went the route with PC 2.76 of converting all product, catelog and brand asp pages into static html. I did it pretty much for the reasons you describe and by the method you suggest of using intermediate look up tables. I also have taken it a minor step further in using html compression. (At the time I could not do any of the simpler "half" methods as my host (1and1 win developers) did not support them. The downsides of this are that everytime I want to regenerate the html due to the various scripts and FTP transfers, html compression etc - it takes me about 4 hours. Also sometimes my head goes numb remembering the various different steps I have to go through to modify feeds to add or delete new products that spawn categories of new brands. You can see the site at moc.dlorwymhtlaehym.www backward (I don't want this link showingup). The downsides are really quite an overhead even with a degree of automation. The upside is that the end user gets to view much better context modified product pages which have all been previous generated with a large number of conditions and database calls that would (on my host) be a very long loading time. (I have the data that backs this). I also find that delivering html is far less prone to variable page serving times when using a shared database. In terms of SE placement - I have not had any significant success but that maybe because nearly all my content is duplicate content despite trying to be creative. An exception to this is Froogle. So like most things software - everything is possible - but if I was doing it over, my lack of sucess with SE placement would not make the effort justified. But it is interesting to follow the path less frequently followed. |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |