Static over Dynamic URL'S?

[thersey]

Our website still has dynamic URL's. Is this still a search engine issue? Will google rank your website any higher if you do a mod rewrite redirecting to static URL's or do they advise against it? We realize that static URL's have a cleaner look. Is it really worth it to change this? :eek:

[williamc]

Nowadays the engines seem able to parse dynamic url's just fine. But is the user experience not worth doing it right anyway?

[shakir]

dynamic URL will not effect in the site.. but only in the promotion of specific URL.. if not targeting any specif URL dynamic URL is not an issue in SEO

[weegillis]

In my experience, a url is a url is a url. If a page is always there, even in the ether, and can be requested anytime, it is there for the SEs.

Last fall I took a 66 indexed url site and dropped all but 7 of the html pages (the front boilerplate) and made all the rest into dynamic (php) pages generated from a flat CSV database and TXT includes. They were all in the index the next week. The seven pages are still indexed, and so are over 140 'thin air' pages. Keeping the sitemap.xml file up to date has helped to ensure that updated pages make it into the index in short order.

Long and short: if your site is working well and is showing up in the index to your satisfaction, don't change a thing. If it isn't, then check other factors, first, and correct them, then consider what to do next.

As for user experience, that's a qualitative concern that I personally can't wrap my head around. If a page loads, and the links within it work, how can a static page be any different from a dynamic one?

[thersey]

Thank you, great advice again. The url's are showing in the index. The only problem is they don't help in description of what it leads to. Sometimes you have to go back to the old saying "If it's not broke, don't fix it" :)

[Feddy]

i m agreed with shakir .....