NetHosted Community

I think there are clever things that .htaccess files can do to display php files as htm. I think....

That is probably true but as the average person would not play around with a htaccess file and because servers are set up differently etc...., and because rec2rec has no FBI files hence why I was suggesting he use html in general.

Also, advice/tip #11 for phil, I would add a lot more content to your website if you are to stand a chance of getting on page one of google. Lack of content means more advertising and promotion. It will be interesting to see where you get with your website position......no preassure, phil

SarahP

"use html in general"? what do you mean by this? Sounds like snobbery from those that can't use PHP etc

I read your earlier post about 'general consensus' and that is a generalism in itself. Why would it make any difference to a robot scanning or even interpreting code? Why, for example, do forums or wordpress sites get indexed when the pre-browser page is just code and no content?

_________________
Getting the hang of it slowly (subject to comment)

It doesn't matter what we think about .htm vs .php. The only thing that matters is what google thinks about .htm vs .php and google doesn't care.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/W ... 5170&hl=en

what?!? don't go ruining the general consensus lol

_________________
Getting the hang of it slowly (subject to comment)

Have a look at this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#cooluris

Particularly the paragraph on stability - don't include things like .php, .asp or .htm in your URIs. That way, if you switch from HTML to PHP (for example), you don't have to change your pages' addresses (and get them reindexed in the search engines).

_________________
http://theunusualsuspect.com/

I would agree if building a site from the ground up it makes sense to forgo file extensions, however it would never be worth changing a well ranked existing site's URI/URL structure, the extension isn't doing any harm whatsoever.

As far as SEO concerns go the file extension (or not as the case may be) is irrelevant, from a best practices perspective the w3 recommendations make sense.

The point I was trying to simplify ("in general") was that html is the more common approach, for what rec2rec pages are which is mostly pure text content. HTML and CSS are ideal for rec2rec needs (easier customization/editing), especially with HTML 5 around the corner, as opposed to php being a more complex language with server-side implications (i.e. 301 redirects, htaccess, mod_rewrite and other technicals) - Again, in general, if any goes wrong with php it is generaly a nightmare to resolve whereas html and css can usually be found a solution etc quicker/easier.

HTML is not snobbery, otherwise all the HTML Editors, Dreamweaver, Website Builders, etc would be snobs Yes they cater for php too but are heavily advertised towards html and the beginner.

With regards to google spidering etc I stand corrected, because I was reading forums etc from about late 2008 without realising it whereby there were issues with people not getting index with .php files. Typical google changing its ways every now and then - Thanks for the link MaddogBattie.

SarahP

so with just HTML how would he update the Vacancies and display them? Keep editing the page? And how would HTML5 help with that?

You seem to be misguiding the issue. If someone has a site with PHP they will be aware of its compexities and the benefits/needs of using it. This won't affect any search engine ranking which was the original point.

_________________
Getting the hang of it slowly (subject to comment)

Just to come full circle on this thread a Google search for rec2rec.me now displays this site in the top spot (with two indented subpages below too!). This was what was originally concerning Phil so that's progress

Andrew

_________________
| Andrew Bassett
| Managing Director, NetHosted Ltd.
| Earn £30 every time you refer someone to us!
| Follow us on Twitter:
| Members, tell us what of NetHosted!