http://usweb.disqus.com/enTue, 28 Oct 2008 05:43:49 -0000http://blog.usweb.com/archives/should-webmasters-listen-to-google-about-dynamic-and-static-urls/#comment-3339688<p>This is very goud thenks goud by</p>cinsel ürünlerTue, 28 Oct 2008 05:43:49 -0000http://blog.usweb.com/archives/should-webmasters-listen-to-google-about-dynamic-and-static-urls/#comment-2620913<p>Thanks for the overview, and for mentioning me in excellent company. There seems to be universal agreement that webmasters want to keep rewriting because of the many benefits.</p>AdamDThu, 25 Sep 2008 01:35:19 -0000http://blog.usweb.com/archives/should-webmasters-listen-to-google-about-dynamic-and-static-urls/#comment-2556038<p>just to add my 2 cents to this; i think clean URL's are a good idea beyond SEO reasons. one of the biggest spikes of business USWeb had in SEO is when companies started making the switch from traditional ASP to .Net (aspx). Suddenly their traffic dropped off because the URL's all changed. This provided an opportunity for smart companies to re-work their URL structure.</p> <p>A good clean URL is likely to get more link, and likely to be maintained by the company, which will ensure that those links maintain. </p> <p>So, keep on clean URL's, and don't use a doc type extension like .php, .aspx, or even .html. Just keep clean, easy to read URL's like:</p> <p><a href="http://www.example.com/folder/file-name" rel="nofollow">www.example.com/folder/file-na...</a> </p> <p>One should also keep in mind that despite what Google may think, they are not the only search engine. Yahoo doesn't even properly recognize 301 re-directs, so why should we trust them to properly crawl dynamic URL's. And clean static URL's just look nicer to users, which is important for gaining links.</p> <p>One last point in my mini rant. The ability to include target terms within the URL is significant. Then when people link to with just the URL, you're still getting some anchor text linking. </p> <p>Keep the clean domains!</p>USWebWed, 24 Sep 2008 00:47:58 -0000