MustangPriMe
IS-IT--Management
I'm looking to implement a CMS for our website.
As I see it there are two main methods:
1. The precomplied approach where html files are physically created in the appropriate struture from content held in a database, and the html files are what the visitors see.
or
2. The on-the-fly approach where the content is served up from the database as and when needed. The vistior calls the same physical page each time, but the querystring identifies the content to be served.
I would favour the 2nd approach as it allows me to be more flexible in terms of what I need to be able to do.
However, I'm concerned about the negatives, particularly the impact on SEO. One of the factors in good SEO is having keywords within your URL. So the first approach might have a page and the second approach might have the same page under
Obviously from a search engine point of view, the first approach is better, but are there ways around this? Do search engines give the same weighting to the querystring? E.g. would overcome this?
Or are there other methods, and I'm barking up the wrong tree?
I considered having a virtual structure where didn't actually exist but was handled by a custom 404 page which served up the appropriate content, but didn't consider this to be good practice!
I'd prefer to keep the on-the-fly approach for flexibility. Performance isn't too much of an issue as it's not a very high volume site. We're also on a shared server, so limited in some of the things we can do.
Any suggestions welcome,
Thanks
Paul
As I see it there are two main methods:
1. The precomplied approach where html files are physically created in the appropriate struture from content held in a database, and the html files are what the visitors see.
or
2. The on-the-fly approach where the content is served up from the database as and when needed. The vistior calls the same physical page each time, but the querystring identifies the content to be served.
I would favour the 2nd approach as it allows me to be more flexible in terms of what I need to be able to do.
However, I'm concerned about the negatives, particularly the impact on SEO. One of the factors in good SEO is having keywords within your URL. So the first approach might have a page and the second approach might have the same page under
Obviously from a search engine point of view, the first approach is better, but are there ways around this? Do search engines give the same weighting to the querystring? E.g. would overcome this?
Or are there other methods, and I'm barking up the wrong tree?
I considered having a virtual structure where didn't actually exist but was handled by a custom 404 page which served up the appropriate content, but didn't consider this to be good practice!
I'd prefer to keep the on-the-fly approach for flexibility. Performance isn't too much of an issue as it's not a very high volume site. We're also on a shared server, so limited in some of the things we can do.
Any suggestions welcome,
Thanks
Paul
