Static HTML vs Dynamic Pages

[angelpure]

I have always been told that static pages are the best way to build a site that is SE friendly. That dynamic pages can't be spidered.

I recently had a client that I was building a site for insist that her "Computer Guru" son told her that Dynamic pages are the wave of the future and that her site should be done that way.

However, my question is a valid one:
Which type of page is better for PR, static html or dynamic pages?

[adore]

No difference - most major SE can spider dynamic urls (provided they meet some criteria like not too long query string).

[Mel]

It may be that dynamic pages will be the wave of the future, but IMO it will be because dynamic pages allow you to create thousands of pages, adding new pages for products or whatever easily and making sitewide changes easily, which is difficult to do with static pages.

Search engines will spider both, but IMO if the site is to have 50 or more pages it may be better to use dynamic page generation.

[ferret77]

in my exp pr is not repersented properly on dynamic pages wiht parameters in the url

the pages get spiderd in fine thye just don't have as much pr as they should

if you remove the ?whater=kjhkj and just leave the file name the pr is much higer even though thye may be no links pointed at that actually url (wihtout the params)

[jwm5411]

Just one point:

Most big sites are entirely dynamic since it is the most cost effective way to manage a big site. PR for these sites don't seem to be a problem.

[witchhead]

I recently added a dynamic link directory to some of my web sites and after only a short time they all started to get a PR and slowly moving up. Make sure your URL's are not containing too many special characters like ?=...
Most searchengines will index the pages.

[Mac 5]

Many other posts have pointed out that a site map with links to your key dynamic pages can help the engines out.