static HTML and pseudo static which is better?

Absrtact: In point Stone Forum and SEO forum often see such a post: static HTML and pseudo static which is better? I use rewrite URL to make pseudo static, search engine will be treated as static Web page? Under the music on static HTML and pseudo static problems

In point Stone Forum and SEO forum often see such a post:

static HTML and pseudo static which is better?

I use rewrite URL to make pseudo static, search engine will be treated as static Web page?

The following is a personal view on static HTML and pseudo static problems.

The following, for Google alone, is not the case for other search engines.

First, let's see which is the better question.

For years, Google's observation of Google has been a fundamentally perfect solution to the problem. In other words, now for Google, whether using pseudo static or static HTML, the basic can be very good to crawl and included, will not appear a few years ago that with multiple parameters of the dynamic URL does not crawl phenomenon.

Crawl solved, so in the same case, pseudo static or static HTML for the search engine better? The answer is static HTML, as it is now, and it is not guaranteed later.

The above must be in the same situation, such as the previous article "Google commentary dynamic, static, pseudo static URL" said, you want to put such a URL address:

Http://www.domain.com/read.php? classid=123&lang=en&id=321

Rewrite:

Http://www.domain.com/read-321.html

The effect theory is not as good as the dynamic address above.

Next we look at the pseudo static and static HTML that Google sees

Google Administrator Tool added "like Googlebot" function, for SEO, the value is very large, can be intuitive to see, Googlebot See your Web page is what.

To experiment, upload a static HTML page that demonstrates XHTML code, in contrast to the previous article. Here are the results of the simulation crawl:

In the image above, the left side is a pseudo static page of an article, the right side is a static HTML file, contrast, can obviously see the following two differences:

Last-modified: Static HTML has modified time (for search engine means to get file modification time directly)

Content-length: File size (SEO should be clear, file size on the impact of search engines; Googlebot If you can get file size directly from the server, as a reference, crawl efficiency will be higher)

The following illustration is a file property of static HTML:

Finally, guess why Google thinks static HTML is better than dynamic URLs

Compare the way static HTML and dynamic URLs work:

Static HTML: The client communicates successfully with the server, and the server sends the file attributes and content directly.

Dynamic URL: Client and server-side communication is successful, the service side according to the content of the client request, generate the content of the page, send the service-side information and the content of the request.

Use a dynamic URL: If the program has problems, all the content based on the program will not be accessible, if the template changes, all the information content will change, and the real value of the content has not changed; If the database ID is not unique, the new content follows the ID of the deleted content, The URL will appear unchanged and the page changes completely ...

In the case of static HTML, the file only exists & does not exist (the server state is not counted), "Modify & Not Modified" (read last-modified).

After this analysis, the result is that static HTML has a higher stability.

This guess can also explain SEO frequently encountered a problem, the site of some documents (pdf&doc&xml) weight relatively high.

Quite a long time did not write a blog, language some confusion, hehe.

When there is time, dedicated to write a blog, introduced Google Administrator tool "like Googlebot" to the meaning of the label, just start with a friend may not be very understanding of these.

Author: Si Shu
Original: For Google pseudo static and static HTML difference Copyright, reprint must be linked to the form of the author and the original source and retain this statement.