static pages vs WordPress, what ranks best?

[loginname]

Hey

I'm thinking of creating a site with about 10 pages. So I was wndering if I should go for static pages or use WordPress (with CMS support...)

WordPress seems like an overkill, but isn't it so that these days it's hard to get static pages indexed. I've read on another forum that google loves wordpress..... but then again maybe it loves WordPress because of some builtin features like RSS which I suppose I can create for my static pages also (server got support for php5)

what you suggest? is it harder to rank static pages now?

[Craig Zimbrowski]

Wordpress is suitable for many simple web sites, It provides good infrastructure of web publishing and gives you tools to build an interactive web site.

[RMC]

I've got a static page with some very good #1's. But it has a lot of links, and is a really old domain.

To me my wordpress sites just rank so quickly, because I have everything dialed in and can tweak them so quick. It's just so much easier to modify and tweak once it's up too. Plus if you really want you can make it look anyway you want, as if it's a static page.

[C2WP]

In my opinion google engine crawlers more quickly recognize wordpress site, rather than static sites.

furthermore WP it is very flexible, you can make look like a static site using WP.

[Abledragon]

It doesn't actually make any difference as long as you build your static web page site properly - meaning that your on-site search engine optimisation is properly set up.

I get new static sites and new WordPress sites indexed in about the same time.

If you're not familiar with on-site SEO, though, WordPress would be better because it takes care of all that.

Cheers,

Martin.

[HCLee]

I built my micro niche sites using static pages and have no problem indexing them. It normally takes me between 4 days to a week to get them indexed.

Originally Posted by loginname

Hey

... these days it's hard to get static pages indexed. I've read on another forum that google loves wordpress..... is it harder to rank static pages now?

[sarah_may]

Nothing wrong in wordpress or static page, Both can rank well but you just need to do SEO properly and use only ethical SEO and have patience.

[bgmacaw]

I agree with what Martin said above.

I've launched about 80 semi-static PHP sites over the past 3 months and all are doing as well as similar WordPress sites. The plus is I don't have to worry about the overhead and bandwidth of a backend database or heavy site construction and the sites aren't needing to be updated to a new version to stop the latest hack every couple of weeks. The minus, if there is one, is that I don't get new user generated content from comments.

Ranking boils down to having a good basic web design that a search engine 'bot can scan and index easily and, most importantly, building keyword targeted links to the pages on the site.

[llamafier]

I'm no expert here, but my guess is it really doesn't matter. Wordpress may be designed well for SEO but there is no reason why you can't have the same strengths in a 'static' site.

In the end everything is HTML.

[WareTime]

What bgmacaw said. For a 10 page site, if you know how to build a site of static pages, I'd do it. No upgrades to worry about, slightly quicker loading pages perhaps due to not having the database overhead. Though with most hosts, even on shared hosting wp is fast too, unless you get a poor performing plugin(s).

The plus is once you build on, you have your template for your next and your next, all you need to do is add content.

[loginname]

Originally Posted by RMC

I've got a static page with some very good #1's. But it has a lot of links, and is a really old domain.

To me my wordpress sites just rank so quickly, because I have everything dialed in and can tweak them so quick. It's just so much easier to modify and tweak once it's up too. Plus if you really want you can make it look anyway you want, as if it's a static page.

What theme are you using?