|
Posted by MS on 02/15/06 21:15
My Experience of Google and PHP pages is that the pages are googled, and
ranked. My pages also use the head.php to create the meta tags, the only
difference would be that mine are dynamic meta tags.
Creating dynamic meta tags is quite easy...and if you are relying upon
visitors to google search for your site then IMHO you would do better having
different meta tags for each page.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.myclubweb.co.uk - The Home of Club Websites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<shortbackandsides.no@spam.hairdresser.net> wrote in message
news:8e26v1d8cmruvd9l7hme4fjki09o3qrhg7@4ax.com...
> I've got a couple of sites where I used
> <?php include "head.php"; ?>
> at the top of each page to include the usual top of page <html><head>
> etc and then the masthead and navigation links.
>
> Google doesn't seem to want to index them. I haven't done any
> deprecated SEO tricks and they are simple non-contentious
> informational sites.
>
> Any observations/experience/suggestions?
>
> I'm thinking of converting those pages which don't NEED php - i.e.
> those with essentially static content back to HTML but I don't
> understand what's happenning because surely if Googlebot requests a
> page it will see the output from the PHP not the raw file.
>
> Or is Google less inclined to index a page of type PHP?
>
> A downsite of using an included "head" section is that title and
> keywords are the same for each page, could this also be a problem to
> Google making it look as if the pages are duplicates intended as
> doorway pages?
>
> Thanks for your attention
> Bill R
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|