SUCCESS...! The Perfect Search Engine URL

[esm]

Well, I think I have done it!

I think I have a method to show EVERY hyperlink as Search Engine Friendly as
possible.

Every Category (and sub-cat) has the following structure:
http://www.website.com/business-to-business.html

Any additional category (and sub-cat) pages have the following structure:
http://www.website.com/business-to-business-1.html

Every link has the following structure:
http://www.website.com/the-amazing-sales-letter-creator.html

Two conditions (really minor):
1. It does require the Apache mod_rewrite feature ( the .htaccess file is only
one line long and easy to write )

2. It uses my LinksCoder program (depending on your point of view, that may be
good or bad ). But LinksCoder reads v3.2 files ( actually, as it uses a data dictionary to define the files and fields of each file, it is designed to read any links-like files )

You can see it here: http://www.indexuhelp.com/link_coder/index.html

Even the main page can end with html instead of php ( well, at least on mine it does !!! ).


.

[alfo]

Hi esm

Could you please explain why the page needs to end in the html extention. Why is the php extention not SE/google friendly?

Many thanks
alfo

[esm]

well, I am not the expert to answer that question. your best bet is to do a google search for "PHP vs HTML" or "HTML vs PHP."

just look at the URLs of the SERPs (Search Engine Result Pages). then read the articles.

It is a mixed bag. Some say HTML pages are better; some say PHP pages are better and some say it does not matter.

SEs have gotten better over the years at handling more complex URLs and with the dramatic increase in pages written with PHP extensions, they would be missing a lot of pages if they didn't include them.

But here is a better question: if you are running a links site using INDEXU, will you better off using HTML or PHP?

With the dramatic increase in links sites in the past couple of years, does google continue to spider a site once it determines it is a links site?



.

[barnkin]

My 2 cents worth in the debate. I am still using "PHP", Google has indexded 29,800 of my pages and their spider comes back twice a month to re-index. I think the search engines have grown up enough to handle complex pages generated by PHP.
Also a little tool to check how your site is doing in the engines.
Uptimebot

Best Regards

[esm]

Teriffic! That is no small accomplishment!

That is certainly a case that Google does index links sites with that use query string in the URL.


.

[barnkin]

Teriffic! That is no small accomplishment!

That is certainly a case that Google does index links sites with that use query string in the URL.


.

Yahoo and the others are not quite that generous yet, but they are getting there.

[esm]

I understand that!

There is still a nagging question in the back of my mind about the HTML vs PHP query string issue. Would you be higher in the SERPs with HTML? When I search I rarely go beyond the first few pages With Google finding say, 11,000,000 pages there is no way I can do more than a few pages. Usually, I find what I need on the first page or two.

So I think that maybe the ultimate goal: each one of your pages listed as number one on the SERP or at least on the first page. maybe the second page. well, it is hard to imagine 29,000 pages listed as number one; even a few would probably be great.

Obviously, you are not going to change your site now. You are pretty much stuck with what you have. Which is still pretty good or maybe even great.

But for a site that is new or not receiving many hits from Google, which would be the best for the future.



.

[Marlboro]

I have really wanted to avoid a debate on .PHP versus .HTML as I rarely post on the forum over the last 3 years. I have been running .PHP for over 3 years now. I have 4 Indexu sites of my own 2 that I parner with and 24 other I consult for. Almost all of the original people that bought IndexU in .PHP have converted to .HTML and all across the board they have posted all the positive changes in their traffic on these forums.
We have averaged a 300% to 400% increase in traffic over a 60 to 90 day period after converting to .HTML on several sites.
Just last month one site was converted and so far has seen their traffic double. We tracked the vurtual identical detail pages ( 30% of the sites traffic) and on G by changing to .HTML and having the keyword in the URL the pages moved up 5 places on an average. If everyone of your listings moved 1/2 page at google that can be a trememdous traffic increase.
Also by extensive research between a group of 4 webmasters we also found an advantage running the keyword in the URL in lower case ( G ) and also switching from an underscore to using the hyphen.
The question of converting to .HTML for us is beyond question at this point.

[Marlboro]

I also gorgot to mention that 3 times over the last 3 years in G we had the titles and descriptions missing in action for hundreds of pages over night. This has never happend on our .HTML pages. Just 3 weeks ago 500 pages that were on the first page for their keyword and generated a lot of trafic - the titles and descriptions disappeared.

Barnkin - barney I just checked your backlinks at G and it appears that hundreds of your pages are also missing their titles and descriptions in G now for allthings photo.com .

I have read hundreds of post at the various search engine forums the last 3 weeks and the complaints are coming from webmasters that run their sites in .PHP and .ASP. Not one .HTML sites posted that their titles and descriptions disapeared at google.

[barnkin]

My fear is that in making any changes that I will blow myself out of the top ranking that I have had for the last 3 years. Mybe it will be worth a try, I have to think it over, I have not made the change to 3.2 for that reason.

[Marlboro]

Hi Barnkin - email me a contact phone number and I will happy to share the + and - and the pitfalls in much more detail which are much to complicate to go into on a forum.

Ted

[Marlboro]

I am in the same situation with one of my websites. The ideal situation would be to generate all the pages in .HTML and add them to your site leaving the .PHP pages for now. Guarantee major search engines will immediate start replacing the .PHP pages with the .HTML in their results after they are indexed and ranked and then remove the .PHP when a large percentage of the new pages show in the Serps, this is what we did on a site last month. That being said, their was a real shakeup in the Serps at G starting 6 days ago which appears to be a duplicate page penalty from a lot of research. Caught between a rock and a hard place myself as for every browse.PHP page has a similar .HTML page which would explain some of the things we have been seeing this last week.

[alfo]

Wow!!!

You ask one simple question....

Like Marlboro I am one of indexu's reader's not poster's and so it is with great interest I have had reading todays posts. Until today I was unaware of the 'php vs html' debate. I would like to say thanks to esm for his honesty and congratulate him on his hardwork (as usual) on the mod. I realise it may not be the reason for purchasing 3.2E but its another 'nail in the coffin'.

It seems to me that from the small amount of web information I have read today on the subject that some people have noticed a rather large increases in traffic/rankings and have backed this up with figures. Whiles others have stated that they didn't believe there was any difference, without really backing up any theory or examples of an actual change over. It's just a shame about the crossover problems with sites which have worked hard on the rankings they do have.

I will read on with interest,
alfo

[Marlboro]

Hi Alfo:

Just for clarity, it is important to note that i said:

"appears to be a duplicate page penalty"

It is really too early to tell. Either way for me I will probably take the risk as I can not continue with these extreme trafic fluxuations on my .PHP sites every 6 to 9 months.

I will probably make this my last post for awhile but to fill in the blanks.

I contacted ESM between 7 to 10 days ago requesting the possibility of being able to do modifications to satisfy the following requests to have darn near the perfect search engine script.

1. All produced pages are in the root directory: www.mysite.com/keyword.html
I could write an entire book on how important this is.

2. All URL's are in the form exactly like a page that someone produced by hand.
http://www.mysite.com/keyword.html

3. All keywords in the URL are in lower case.

4. All url contain no underscores and either with or without hyphens seperating the keywords would be fine ( I prefer the hyphens )

4 or 5 days later ESM reported miracle here on the forum that he has made the modifications.

And I am really looking foward to starting to convert mine over to ESM'S scripts and i will report back the results.

[esm]

Wow!!!
You create one simple MOD....

I realise it may not be the reason for purchasing 3.2E but its another 'nail in the coffin'.

Ouch! Hope, it is not driving you to an early grave!

I realise it may not be the reason for purchasing 3.2E but its another 'nail in the coffin'.

I am beginning to think the Perfect Search Engine URL MOD is THE reason to use v3.2E Enhanced. or better yet, LinksCoder.

Don't get me wrong, I think I've done some really neat MODs for INDEXU. I think they have added value to a pretty good product. And depending on how you use INDEXU, some maybe the very thing that some INDEXU webmaster needs for his/her site.

Having fooled around with links programs for several years now ( primarily from the programming point of view ), I've slowly come to one conclusion: You are not going to make your money by using a $99 program to create the next Yahoo. but you can make money by driving surfers to you website and making money from the likes of Google. They will make more money than you but a little piece of a big pie is much better than a big piece of nothing.

Take a look at all the website sites in action here in the INDEXU forum. How many are still around let alone making any money? Look at the successful ones. Where are they making money? Not from selling premium listings or ads to link owners. If they are doing that, then I suspect they have to do it 10-12 hours per day. I think they make make their money from click-thrus.

This is a little off topic.

If a successful site needs HTML pages, then I think LinksCoder creates those pages better than almost any other method. I think it does it better than v3.2E Enhanced, which is itself an improvement over v3.2.



.