Google and PHP

[Herbster]

So... does Google still have a problem indexing pages with a "?" in the URL?

I've read Aspen's excellent article and I can do the foo if necessary, but it adds a layer of complexity I would like to avoid.

Search engine tactics change so fast and so often...
What are people doing today?

[ITstudent]

Excuse me, but where do I find this aspens' article?

Thanks.

Oh, and Googlde does not have a problem indexing the URL with the ? in it, they simply don't want to put too much stress on your server, knowing that url with ? means a dymanic page. They still index dynamic pages, just not too many of them at one shot.

I actually see several search results in Google contain the pages with the "?" in it.

[Herbster]

Bad on me.
As soon as I left the site I realized I should have posted the link to Aspen's article...

http://www.promotionbase.com/article/485

[aspen]

Google has never had a problem with such URLs, its other search engines that did.

Although other search engines are coming around and more and more are indexing such URLs. However I still recommend using a method from my article. The reason is that these are also user friendly URLs. They are easier for a user to remember and type in.

Also if you one day change your scripting language or variable names your URLs, and thus all incoming links and directory listings, can stay the same.

[worksdev]

Also by using urls in the way Aspen points out, you have the option of putting in static pages for databased articles and content that gets hit often but is updated rarely. You could toggle between static or dynamic pages using the same url references.

[Archbob]

Google treat php like regular pages. I just reads the code like a text file. I don't know about perl though.

[Chas]

re: Aspen's SE friendly URLs article

I started reading Chris's article looking to implement this method for my sites redesign - however there is one important fact about how Google assign PageRank that it doesn’t mention...

By assigning each page down 2 or more directory levels (promotionbase.com/article/485) you loose a significant amount of that pages PR:

http://www.promotionbase.com/article/485 (PR 1 according to Google Toolbar)

where as without using Search Engine-Friendly URLs, say your main page has a PR of 7:

promotionbase.com/

any page located in the root:
promotionbase.com/article.php?id=485
would return a PR of 6 depending on how well you've linked thru to the article.php file.

[aspen]

Actually thats inaccurate Chas.

PageRank is not based on directory structure at all, only on incoming links.

The toolbar guesses a PageRank on pages based on their directory structure if the page itself does not have a PageRank. However this is only a guess and has absolutely no value. I have this direct from guys at Google via a conversation with Wayne Yeager of Trafficology.com

Once a page is spidered and Google updates the guess goes away replaced by a valid PageRank.

This is why sites on geocities have high PageRanks until they are actually spidered.

[Chas]

Originally posted by aspen
Actually thats inaccurate Chas.

PageRank is not based on directory structure at all, only on incoming links.

I don’t see how that can be true..... Google have indexed your article page (so the PR of 1 is it's true rank) and has flagged several pages (the highest one of which has a PR of 6) pointing to it from promotionbase.com

Even allowing for a slight drop in PR from all the links leading off the subcat page this still doesn’t explain why your page only has a PR of 1 -- unless each sites page PR drops down significantly each directory level.

[aspen]

Its true Chas, its factual, you can look it up if you like. PageRank is not based at all on directories, only on incoming links. The fact is for many of the older articles on promotionbase Google is not showing any backwards links. Meaning there aren't any links that provide a sufficient enough weight to show. Lack of incoming links is why the PR on the articles is so low, not because of what directory they are in.

This isn't something I can't argue with you about, its like you're claiming the sky is green when anyone can easily look into the sky and see that its blue.

You obviously don't understand PageRank at all. I suggest reading this page:

http://www-db.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

I am really quite suprised, I thought you knew more about search engines than this.

If you still don't believe that thesis by the creators of google and don't believe the software guys at Google, and you don't believe me then you can test this yourself. Make a geocities page and notice it has a PageRank (according to the toolbar) of 7 or so. Then submit it to Google and wait for Google to spider it and then update. Tell me if the PageRank is still a 7.

[Chas]

Ok, it would have been stupid of you Chris not to have looked into this before posting your article -- it looks now that Google does work on a page-by-page basis and disregards directory structure.

As for questioning my ability as a SEO'er, ill simply have to challenge you to a duel -- shot glasses at ten paces!