HTML vs PHP

[lrobertson]

If all things are equal on 2 websites apart from one was written in php and one in html, which would rank better? I would assume static html pages would rank best but if there is a large amount of static content on the php website how much of a difference does it make? If anyone has any feedback I would be grateful.

[Whit]

I don't think they would be ranked any differently. If Google, or any other engine, is ranking HTML pages higher then PHP I would just change the extension of my PHP pages to HTML and tell my server to parse HTML pages as PHP.

[cyanide]

Whit pretty much sums it up.

There's no difference.
The difference has to do with the url string it takes to retrieve the page. If you have more than 3 variables, you'll encounter some difficulty

[lrobertson]

Thanks for the response. I was just wondering if file name extensions did make a difference to ranking.

[ronniethedodger]

Thanks for the response. I was just wondering if file name extensions did make a difference to ranking.

I had wondered that myself. I had heard that having .shtml extensions had some detrimental effect to your pages for some reason or another.

But, as a user pointed out ... you can always tell your server to parse .htm pages as .shtml (or .html pages). You would want to use whichever extension that you do not normally use to reduce server burden.

Whether or not this has any effect, I cannot say. But my motto is ... if it possibly can, then don't do it. Although in your case -- .php or .html -- I do not see any problems as everyone has stated before me.

[redcircle]

If the pages are exactly the same then there should be no difference. If you are using the power of php to keep content fresh and updated the spiders will come there more often. So if you were to make any changes you will see the results quicker.

[ronniethedodger]

If the pages are exactly the same then there should be no difference. If you are using the power of php to keep content fresh and updated the spiders will come there more often. So if you were to make any changes you will see the results quicker.

My reference was just to pages with the .shtml extension. If memory recollects, it was advised that by virtue of .shtml as being changed on the fly on the server side and being able to serve up alternate pages (as in a set for visitors and a set for spiders) then it would be best to change that extension to something else other than .shtml.

True, the content would be identical to normal Html or even PHP pages -- but the stigma of the that .shtml extension could be a problem. But as I also stated, this may not be a problem at all.

I use .shtml pages myself and have not noticed anything wrong. Although as we all know, just because you cannot see anything -- it does not mean that it does not exist.

[jackson992]

The only difference I think is it is harder to get all your php pages indexed than it is straight html