html vs php

[innominds]

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]

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]

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

[LD]

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?

[LD]

I quite agree! [/I]

Agree with what?

[deepsand]

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]

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]

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

[LD]

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]

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.