We have SEO optimized our website for Google Search engine. Now, we planning the migration from “Wordpress” to “.aspx” due to security.
ASP.NET, generally speaking - is a web spider’s worst nightmare.
My Questions:-
Why not consider what is best for your human visitors?
Search results are based primarily on the content of your page.
Provided your HTML is semantic, and correctly structured, your pages can all be crawled and your pages load reasonably quickly, it will make no difference to search engines which back end technology is used to render the pages.
I feel like a post like this is the engineer looking for a way to say ‘It won’t work’ to their boss.
Based on what do you make this statement? ASP.net is a preprocessor. It generates HTML. The web spider only sees the output, not the raw code. So it’s only ‘a web spider’s worst nightmare’ if your OUTPUT is poorly organized.
“If we switch from wordpress to .aspx will it affect SEO” (title)
As @TechnoBear says, Search results are based primarily on the content.
Now, that said; in the short-term, yes, rewriting your entire website to a different file structure will cause an ‘SEO’ disruption - you’re changing all of the pages, so the search engines will have to adjust to the idea that ‘this old page stopped getting views! … but this new one is getting views…’
WordPress is a CMS. It is written in PHP.
PHP is comparable to ASP.Net and C# but it is not useful to compare WordPress to ASP.Net. It would be appropriate to compare WordPress to DNN and to Orchard Core. Do you understand what a CMS is? Are you prepared (do you have the staff and funding) to do the C# (and/or VB.Net) programming?
I do not know what types of security problems that WordPress has. It is likely the problems can be solved, especially for less money than a conversion. Use of ASP.Net does not guarantee security.
@TechnoBear Thank you for the response and much appreciated.
Yes, the Search result is primarily based on the “content relevance” of my page.
The thing is technical configuration “Crawlability & indexability” issues in ASP Dot Net.
Thank you @m_hutley,
Based on what do you make this statement?
ASP.net has some difficulties such as page load time, Crawlability & indexability ect., compare to other platforms.
Thank you @SamuelCalifornia ,
My manager feels WordPress is open source and not secure. Just he is suggesting to switch “ASP Dot Net”.
Cite your source; a site built in ASP is just as capable of being crawled and indexed as any other website.
I’ve never noticed any slowness, and certainly no lack of crawlability/indexing of https://www.w3schools.com/ - a site that is written in ASP that has certainly been crawled and indexed by search engines…
Yes, I agree. I did a quick analysis this “ASP Dot Net” site below. It is absolutely perfect and well coded(technical configuration).
wilsonsecurity.com
Can you provide an authoritive source saying that?
Your manager needs to learn much more before making arbitrary decisions that might waste a lot of his or her employer’s money.
Linux is considered by many to be more secure than Windows because Linux is open source and if malware modifies Linux then there are many experts that will know that. Sure, the malware makers can make malware for Linux because they have the source but there are many experts that can detect when Linux has been modified.
I am a C# and ASP.Net enthusiast, at least to the extent that I do not like PHP. I am not defending PHP and WordPress because I am a fan, I am defending them based on facts alone. I think that switching to C# and ASP.Net is a good idea if it is done for the right reasons and if management understands the consequences. Your manager likely has no idea of the relevant costs.
What is your opinion about this - https://moz.com/ugc/seo-pitfalls-every-microsoft-net-developer-should-know-about
The disclaimer in the first paragraph makes it clear it is absolutely not authoritive. The author’s views are entirely his or her own. The second paragraph is totally subjective. The remainder of the article does not justify the outrageous opinion in the second paragraph. It is foolish to act on articles like that with nothing authoritive. That article would not be accepted as authoritive for the WikiPedia.
It was published in 2011, which makes it ancient history in web terms. Things move on very quickly in this industry. If you cannot find anything more recent, I think it would be safe to assume that whatever problems may have existed have long since ceased to be an issue.
What I meant to say is that it is foolish to use articles like that without something else that is authoritive. The difference between what I said and what I meant are minor but I wanted to clarify anyway.
