View Full Version : html vs php
muskie
04-29-2011, 02:35 PM
I have always thougt html pages ranked higher than php pages on Google and all of the search engines. I have recently witnessed a competitor rebuild their site. Every graphic link and link text on their home page is html. For the four most major keyword phrases in our business they have shot to the top of Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. and seem to be very solidly stuck there. Does anyone else out there think html pages rank higher than php pages?
defensity
04-29-2011, 02:44 PM
Well... the short answer, is false - one is not better than the other.
However, it all depends how the site was built, organized - site architecture, URLs, etc. -
AboutWeb
04-29-2011, 02:47 PM
You can mask files extensions by using .htaccess rewrite URL so your homepage.php could look like homepage.html or simple homepage.
I don't think that your competitor really made static pages in HTML and managed to get himself to top SERPs on Google. It would be a huge work and it will take a lot of time to build hundreds, thousands of static HTML pages. Because I don't think your competitor is ranking so good with only 5-10 pages.
The key would be to simplify your code, remove unnecessary lines, and make it WC3 valid. You can do that using PHP in combination with HTML (PHP outputs HTML)..this is the way how the major CMS's work now a days.
[Edit] One more thing, before I forget :)) : Maybe he was referring to dynamic pages in PHP like this one: index.php?id=2. In this case it's not a surprise that you won't rank good. You need to make "pretty links" with .htaccess rewrite url engine.
morestar
04-29-2011, 03:21 PM
I believe there was a time when most people believed .html files ranked higher than .html. I guess one of the reasons was speed - page loading speed they thought was helped with HTML files because there is only one connection to the server - the page. I remember using OS Commerce (and almost killing myself) quite a bit for clients and with OS Commerce's cousin CRE Loaded, you could add a module that would make all your PHP pages HTML - all for SEO.
I honestly never found an ounce of a benefit of HTML pages in the search results - anything quite measurable and to date, I believe the belief that HTML is better for SEO is completely off now - a good link from a good article published at a good website can boost a website much quicker and easier than changing a page into HTML PLUS Google (for instance) would rank a website against another in such a way.
That's my take although it's still debatable and a lot of people feel otherwise about the idea...
defensity
04-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Well, i think it all started waaay back when Google admitted it had trouble indexing pages with variables in it, such as index.php?page=1&id=23&sid=4.
Google can handle these URLs fine now and the general consensus, is to keep the number of variable in a URL to 3 or less.
But obviously URLs like index/page1/id123/sid4 is better for optimization purposes.
deepsand
04-29-2011, 11:27 PM
Hm-mm.
Considering that there is no contextual difference between files with HTML and PHP extensions, and that it is the content alone that is of interest to an indexing engine, what basis is there for believing that any SE favors one over the other?
Sokolenko
04-30-2011, 11:36 AM
Caitlyn is absolutely right
Caitlyn is absolutely right
What I find amusing is that someone in post #8 agrees with with post #7, who basically posted the same thing as what deepsand posted in post #6. :shock:
morestar
04-30-2011, 03:21 PM
What I find amusing is that someone in post #8 agrees with with post #7, who basically posted the same thing as what deepsand posted in post #6. :shock:
I think it's possible that in this case, the OP needs a few "they're right" responses in order to believe. Although looking at Deepsand's reputation, if one is apt enough, should be able to make a decent determination as to whether he should be trusted...I'm assuming...
morestar
04-30-2011, 03:22 PM
But I do get your point as I was going to delete those two posts as they weren't really adding anything productive to the thread other than a "I agree" which we don't stand for here at WPW. Active contributions fellas!
deepsand
04-30-2011, 03:23 PM
What I find amusing is that someone in post #8 agrees with with post #7, who basically posted the same thing as what deepsand posted in post #6. :shock:
That owes to browser induced myopia. ;)
But I do get your point as I was going to delete those two posts as they weren't really adding anything productive to the thread other than a "I agree" which we don't stand for here at WPW. Active contributions fellas!
Witnessing the same context every third post with nothing new contributed makes it tough to stay subscribed to the thread. I'm hoping, by asking a few questions for clarification (if I understand the point or not) makes the thread a little more focused and facilitate a little more usable information.
deepsand
04-30-2011, 05:02 PM
Witnessing the same context every third post with nothing new contributed makes it tough to stay subscribed to the thread. I'm hoping, by asking a few questions for clarification (if I understand the point or not) makes the thread a little more focused and facilitate a little more usable information.
In that respect, it's tame here compared to the barrage of hit-and-run posters at V7N. :sad:
In that respect, it's tame here compared to the barrage of hit-and-run posters at V7N. :sad:
OMG. I only visited there once or twice and don't remember much. Senior moment?
deepsand
04-30-2011, 08:26 PM
OMG. I only visited there once or twice and don't remember much. Senior moment?
Or, blinded by the dazzling display of tripe.
Although looking at Deepsand's reputation, if one is apt enough, should be able to make a decent determination as to whether he should be trusted
The green rep and the articulate nature of the reply of a vet member (in this case DS), the trust aspect should be crystal clear. Or in this case, clear as a green gemstone. ;-)
I’ve witnessed SteveG recently giving advice to correct a member’s post and then the following 3 posters were agreeing with the post that was incorrect, totally skipping Steve’s remarks entirely, and there was quite a bit of time inbetween responses. :shock:
deepsand
04-30-2011, 10:48 PM
I've witnessed SteveG recently giving advice to correct a member’s post and then the following 3 posters were agreeing with the post that was incorrect, totally skipping Steve's remarks entirely, and there was quite a bit of time inbetween responses.
A typical poster merely skims the opening post at best - many just glance at the Title - and promptly seeks out the nearest "Reply" Button/Panel.
Of the few given to first doing some additional reading, that portion steadily declines in direct proportion to the length of the thread. By the time a thread reaches its 3rd page, exceedingly few newcomers read more than the OP's opener.
Having a "Reply" function presented atop the thread, as does WPW here do, simply encourages such behavior.
submissionbay
05-01-2011, 10:12 AM
No sense to compare static with dynamic
No sense to compare static with dynamic
Compare static with dynamic what? :confused:
deepsand
05-01-2011, 04:32 PM
No sense to compare static with dynamic
If by that you mean that the matter of static vs. dynamic page content is irrelevant to the issue of HTML vs. PHP file extensions, you are correct, as both can be used for either content type.
innominds
05-02-2011, 08:54 AM
If html version is more SEO friendly than php, I'm sure every webmaster would have developed his/her site in html only.
As every one know content is the king and it decides the fate wrt rankings.
deepsand
05-02-2011, 11:27 PM
As every one know content is the king and it decides the fate wrt rankings.
While content may King, the King is not always the true power behind the throne.
A brief look at Google's SERPs will suffice for laying the myth that "content rules" to rest.
chiragtarkar
05-03-2011, 02:14 PM
Totally Agree that HTML pages are more effective.
My own site is in Totally HTML. and I am getting good benefits.
Basically google giving more priority for simple html pages then the dynamic php or asp pages.
If you want to chek site here is it.
www . tarkar . com
Totally Agree that HTML pages are more effective.
My own site is in Totally HTML. and I am getting good benefits.
Basically google giving more priority for simple html pages then the dynamic php or asp pages.
If you want to chek site here is it.
Check your site for what?
I quite agree! [/I]
Agree with what?
deepsand
05-03-2011, 04:15 PM
Totally Agree that HTML pages are more effective.
My own site is in Totally HTML. and I am getting good benefits.
Basically google giving more priority for simple html pages then the dynamic php or asp pages.
Before pontificating, learn about the subject matter.
The extension, be it ASP, HTML or PHP, is immaterial to the content, and whether such is static or dynamic.
All three of these can contain both.
As for Google's alleged preferences, good luck trying to substantiate that claim.
johnktaylor
05-04-2011, 02:26 AM
I don't think extension make a difference in your website rankings. You can get good rankings with php extension. So try to analyse your competiotrs websites
SamyHyppia
05-04-2011, 07:21 AM
I think it's pretty hard to compare these to because they work on different aspects of the site.
While HTML is the building block of any website PHP makes your page alive and permits user interface
I think it's pretty hard to compare these to because they work on different aspects of the site.
While HTML is the building block of any website PHP makes your page alive and permits user interface
While the original title suggests html vs. PHP, if you had read the OP, you would have discovered the subject matter is about which type of extension ranks higher on all of the search engines.
deepsand
05-04-2011, 04:20 PM
I think it's pretty hard to compare these to because they work on different aspects of the site.
While HTML is the building block of any website PHP makes your page alive and permits user interface
To repeat, the extension, be it ASP, HTML or PHP, is immaterial to the content, and whether such is static or dynamic.
All three of these can contain both.
weegillis
05-04-2011, 05:08 PM
Like deepsand said, the extension has no bearing on the matter, only the document itself goes under the scope. As such, the only thing a robot sees is what is tied to the document on the client side. It never sees the PHP, or other server side templates and logic.
It never sees the PHP, or other server side templates and logic.
Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread, but if the contents of the PHP file are generated from records on a database on the server, unless the bot can invoke the query, which I don't think it can, it will only see the PHP document on the server before the query to populate the pages - correct?
technokraft
05-04-2011, 06:02 PM
Ofcourse, html or php has no difference on Google or other search engine. I did SEO for my personal company website Technocraft Pakistan [ technokraft.net ], although it is designed in joomla, but due to search engine friendly text, links, h1 to h6 tags used, directory submission, blogs and forum submission, as well as taking backlinks from high PR sites mimimum 5 to 6, can take your site up. and it was done in my site and now it has PR3 on Google in just 2 months.
deepsand
05-04-2011, 06:15 PM
Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread, but if the contents of the PHP file are generated from records on a database on the server, unless the bot can invoke the query, which I don't think it can, it will only see the PHP document on the server before the query to populate the pages - correct?
That's not unique to PHP.
More importantly, that holds true for any content that is external to the file in question, content that is only displayed when the page is rendered. So, the question becomes one of to what extent does any SE attempt to retrieve dynamic content.
With respect to Google, see, among others, http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html and http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=77c605450b6db491&hl=en .
So, the question becomes one of to what extent does any SE attempt to retrieve dynamic content. With respect to Google, see, among others, http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/dynamic-urls-vs-static-urls.html and http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=77c605450b6db491&hl=en .
I agree - PHP, ASP etc can look odd when looking under the hood at the un-rendered page code. From the article I gather that the unrenderd page is not unlike a template and only takes shape once the page renders with the content pulled from the database for that specific page. But what I didn't get from the article is how or even if the page content (which resides the database untill the database calls are made) can be crawled, since the content is all tucked away in database records. Once the page is queried, the database calls are made, the page renders and voila, it looks great.
I do some maintenance coding in ASP and some PHP and know what the source code of those pages look like. I just can't get my head this from an indexing stand point. :-?
deepsand
05-04-2011, 09:48 PM
I don't want go too far off topic but I also heard that flash is not good for SEO. Is this true?
See Google indexes Flash and other rich media files types. (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS284US285&q=google+index+flash)
For most users, though, Flash sucks, as it does not respond to input devices, i.e. keyboard, mouse, touch screen, touch pad, etc., as do standard code types.
deepsand
05-04-2011, 10:00 PM
I agree - PHP, ASP etc can look odd when looking under the hood at the un-rendered page code. From the article I gather that the unrenderd page is not unlike a template and only takes shape once the page renders with the content pulled from the database for that specific page. But what I didn't get from the article is how or even if the page content (which resides the database untill the database calls are made) can be crawled, since the content is all tucked away in database records. Once the page is queried, the database calls are made, the page renders and voila, it looks great.
I do some maintenance coding in ASP and some PHP and know what the source code of those pages look like. I just can't get my head this from an indexing stand point. :-?
Perhaps something from the following will help.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=google+index+da&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS284US285&q=google+index+database
bmservice
05-05-2011, 02:58 AM
nothing do with html or php,all depends on the content of your site.
Perhaps something from the following will help.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=google+index+da&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS284US285&q=google+index+database
Thanks - I think I get it. I was thinking "event" - something that invokes a script and pulls the info from the database. For users, it's a "mouse over", "on click" type event on a link that causes the scripts to run and make database calls. So does the bot cause an "event" like action which invokes the scripts that pulls the data from the db - and then is able to crawl and index the page? :???:
deepsand
05-05-2011, 05:27 PM
So does the bot cause an "event" like action which invokes the scripts that pulls the data from the db - and then is able to crawl and index the page? :???:
Generally done via URL parms.
There remains, however, a very, very large "dark" web, most likely much bigger than that known to SEs.
There remains, however, a very, very large "dark" web, most likely much bigger than that known to SEs.
Dark matter? ;-)
deepsand
05-05-2011, 06:10 PM
Dark matter? ;-)
Possibly WIMPs.
williamc
05-05-2011, 06:12 PM
Possibly WIMPs.
Cripes, don't take me back to physics class :(
deepsand
05-05-2011, 06:31 PM
Cripes, don't take me back to physics class :(
Sorry; it's the scientist in me. I've been fascinated by the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of the universe since my earliest memories.
Sorry; it's the scientist in me. I've been fascinated by the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of the universe since my earliest memories.
Like the Big Bang - Sheldon Cooper style?
deepsand
05-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Like the Big Bang - Sheldon Cooper style?
In the heart of the Appalachians?
deepsand
05-05-2011, 10:33 PM
thought it was in Cali
Sheldon, perhaps; but, not me.
johnroberson
05-09-2011, 02:29 AM
Comparision between HTML and PHP ,HTML is stands for hyper text markup language,the HTML is very user friendly and you can make the web site easily its client side language, PHP stands for Hypertext Preprocessor,PHP is a server-side scripting language, like ASP.net ,PHP is the most popular scripting language on the web.PHP is an open source software.its very useful to design a web site,
deepsand
05-09-2011, 02:36 AM
Comparision between HTML and PHP ,HTML is stands for hyper text markup language,the HTML is very user friendly and you can make the web site easily its client side language, PHP stands for Hypertext Preprocessor,PHP is a server-side scripting language, like ASP.net ,PHP is the most popular scripting language on the web.PHP is an open source software.its very useful to design a web site,
But, what has this to do with the matter of what, if any, effect the file extension has on indexing and/or SERP rank?
deepsand
05-10-2011, 03:23 AM
Actually most of the php pages are dynamic...it contains characters like "?" & etc ..which gets caught in Google spider's web!!
Hence its sometime difficult to rank a keyword with a dynamic URL!! The solution for this is to convert the dynamic php URL into HTML URL.
And yes keywords targeted to HTML URL do rank well!! Crawlers are more comfortable with HTML URL !!!
To repeat: There is no necessary relationship between HTML, PHP, & ASP file extensions on the one hand, and whether or not content and/or URLs are static or dynamic on the other.
Furthermore, SEs have been equipped to well handle dynamic URLs for quite some time now.
It also depends upon the standard .. the site is optimized!! If its an php site and well optimized than it will definitely rank well rather than the one which is a HTML site which is poorly optimized!!
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the issue.