Static pages vs posts and google searches

  • Author
  • #445454


    The consensus seems to be that constructing one’s blog with just “pages” rather than “posts” renders it less likely to make any impression on google searches. But is that really so? If you design a conventional website that is also designed with “pages”, each having a unique URL or at least subsidiary URLs to the home page does that mean they have inferior pulling power on Google?

    It just doesn’t seem to add up. Please illuminate me on why “pages” really are a bad thing. Thanks.

    The blog I need help with is



    Yes, it is really so.

    Search engines filter for dynamic content. That means things that are constantly updating. I’m sure the Google blog has lots to say on teh subject, but the long and short of it is, this is how search engines function. Static pages suck, and the further from the first page of a site the changes are, the lower priority Google gives each change, add, etc. So blogs, where all the dynamic content is right up front and on top, outrank every other form of web design on earth.



    raincoasterhas it right. The front page of a blog is where most Google juice goes to. Making a blog into a mock website with a static page structure will kill the blog’s ability to achieve a PageRank, and also have the effect of peeving off anyone who is a repeat visitor.



    Ha ha! I see. Well I do have a “proper” website as well – a commercial one, and that has a static front page, though it is updated perhaps once every three months. It’s still around eighth in Google’s list for the subject matter it covers.

    But point taken, dynamic content etc. Thanks.

The topic ‘Static pages vs posts and google searches’ is closed to new replies.