Are Static URLs Better Than Dynamic URLs ? Ask Google.
Google SEO No Comments »
There has been a long standing debate amongst SEO experts as to whether static URLs are more effective than dynamic URLls where search engine indexing is concerned. The majority of the community has sided with static URLs and the recommendation to re-write dymanic URLs into static ones using .htaccess and mod_rewrite. The general consensus being that static URLs can be keyword rich whereas dynamic URLs are not.
In a posting on Google Webmaster Central, Juliane Stiller and Kaspar Szymanski of Google’s Search Quality Team have debunked several of the myths and misconceptions related to writing URLs as static or dynamic.
Which can Googlebot read better, static or dynamic URLs? We’ve come across many webmasters who, like our friend, believed that static or static-looking URLs were an advantage for indexing and ranking their sites. This is based on the presumption that search engines have issues with crawling and analyzing URLs that include session IDs or source trackers. However, as a matter of fact, we at Google have made some progress in both areas. While static URLs might have a slight advantage in terms of clickthrough rates because users can easily read the urls, the decision to use database-driven websites does not imply a significant disadvantage in terms of indexing and ranking. Providing search engines with dynamic URLs should be favored over hiding parameters to make them look static. |
The reaction to this announcment was met with mixed emotions as evidenced by some of the comments on the article. One commentor named Leslie stated the obvious, dynamic URLs related to database driven e-commerce or shopping cart sites being a necessary evil and Google’s advice to leave dynamic URLs as dynamic is perceived as a good thing…
This is good information to know especially on say an e-commerce site, particularly with seasonal merchandise. It’s not important that visitors (ie. shoppers) be able to find a specific page on the site by remembering the URL to it so they can type it in. For these e-commerce sites, better to leave the dynamic links alone. But, this is going to upset SEO consultants who have built up businesses around rewriting these URLs, no doubt. |
On the other hand, another commentor named briansol has a valid point about W3 recommendations to re-write dynamic URLs as an element of style.
I think uncle G just shot themselves in the foot with this one. I will continue to re-write my URLs, because the W3 recommends it.http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI Note the date this article was written. 1998. Long before Google was the search engine of choice. If Google can’t get their software to function properly to this standard, 10 years after the fact, then THEY are the ones who are behind the times.I WILL NOT downgrade for their spiders inept.I suggest you all keep your links as they are, and let Google realize their mistake when their market share drops. |
Changes to the W3 recommended standards often conjure up the comparison to a Microsoft-ish approach to alter internet standards to suit their own needs and to distance themselves from competitors. However, in this case, I don’t think Google is trying to re-invent the wheel, the real issue is problematic indexing of directory URLs when webmasters choose to utilize mod_rewrite to create static looking URLs. The key to this issue is evidenced in one paragraph towards the end of the article…
The following are some examples of static-looking URLs which may cause more crawling problems than serving the dynamic URL without rewriting:
|
As you can see in the examples given by Google, the problems will start when Gogolebot starts breaking the URL down into it’s components and tries to index each non-existant directory in the URL. In the case of the first URL, Googlebot will attempt to index the following :
- www.example.com/article/
- www.example.com/article/bin/
- www.example.com/article/bin/answer.foo/
- www.example.com/article/bin/answer.foo/en/
- www.example.com/article/bin/answer.foo/en/3/
- www.example.com/article/bin/answer.foo/en/3/98971298178906/
Probably none of the sub-directories created by a clean re-write exampled above actually exist as physical directories yet Googlebot will try to index them nonetheless. Most experienced SEO’s are well aware of this glaring problem with Googlebot and purposely write another set of 301 redirects to circumvent the crawler’s inadequacies. This has always been a fundamental problem with Googlebot, it tends to go where it shouldn’t and the results can sometimes be disasterous for webmasters and SEOs. Wordpress publishers can tell you that Googlebot will ignore important links fed to it and go for category indexed and page indexes instead of following the hierarchical linking order set by the CMS.
The answer to Google’s URL crawling problem is relatively simple, don’t let Googlebot index a URL if it isn’t linked to. Telling webmasters that they should now abandon elements of style supported by the W3 for over a decade is not a solution. The solution lies in fixing a crawler that doesn’t follow links properly and crawls links it makes up all by itself.
What do you think? Will you follow Google’s advice and stop using mod_rewrite and start using dynamic links or will you follow the W3 standards ?
