Wordpress VS Static HTML Pages

[Dario James]

I own well over 100 websites in many different niches and discovered something quite valuable I would like to share with my fellow warriors.

Most of my websites are created with wordpress (80 or so sites)

20 websites are custom designed static html ones.

Now which ones do you think perform better regarding to rankings?

Well no it's not Wordpress like every marketer tells us to use!

It's the simple html sites.

In my opinion they rank almost twice as good.

Do you have the same experience?

[KenJ]

I also find this with my sites too.

As long as the html site is well organised and has easy an navigational layout it will certainly outperform a wordpress blog.

My first thought is always html unless there is a very good reason to use wordpress. e.g a true blog with followers and daily posts.

Kenj

[childcarecenter]

I think from the SEO perspective, html pages probably perform better. But from the maintenance perspective, it's easier to maintain with wordpress.

Personally, I only use wordpress for blogging. For most of my websites, I created myself using cakephp.

[Dario James]

Originally Posted by Aysdom

That surprises me a lot actually, how could plain HTML webpages get twice better rankings than wordpress blogs all other things being equal? Your HTML pages might have more targeted content than your wordpress blogs, you might have done better SEO on them, or they might be in less competitive niches. I'm sure you've checked all that, as it sounds obvious, but as I said I can't imagine HTML sites ranking twice better than wordpress blogs with same content, same SEO in same niche.

well yea twice is a bit exaggerated but still I see a huge difference. I started testing this stuff side by side around 2 months ago.

[Istvan Horvath]

Originally Posted by Aysdom

I can't imagine HTML sites ranking twice better than wordpress blogs with same content, same SEO in same niche.

Why?

What is in WP that everybody thinks is something inherently SEO-magical?

I know all those "theories":
- if the blogger is not idiot, WP will output valid code
- if the theme author didn't screw up it uses the headings properly
- it gets updated (if it is a real blog)
- it pings automatically

Just curious

[Dario James]

Originally Posted by Istvan Horvath

Why?

What is in WP that everybody thinks is something inherently SEO-magical?

Have no idea either

[DogScout]

Too many plug-ins will slow WP down. That alone can be a killer. If WP is used for a static non-updated daily or regularly CMS, it should perform no better than a non-up-dated HTML site; and lots of gunk to make it perform worse.

WP is easier, however to actually use IF you are adding content regularly. If you use an HTML site, add content often and rebuild the sitemap, you are likely using far less code that a plug-in heavy WP install or even one with few plug-ins. It should load twice as fast, (unless you use a 2004 version of Dreamweaver that adds 2 pages of code just for the nav bar). Takes longer to add pages though.

& as Istvan pointed out, WP opens lots of opportunities to screw the pooch.

[John Hocking]

It may have a lot to do with how the website folders are structured and the permilinks for the wp blogs.

One thing to consider is that when you post to you wp blog, you are also sending pings to the blog sphere sites like technorati. Depending on your topic and your content, you may find you get a lot of additional traffic to your blog that does not come from the search engine.

WP can also easily be set up to update your twitter, facebook and other social media sites. This makes it more a hub for seo, social media and easy of updating.

Most of my wp blogs rank in the top #3 in Google for the main keyword.

I think really boils down to making your website (static or WP) as seo friendly as possible. Make good use of the title and make it as interesting as possible.

Most importantly, test everything for yourself.

[Chris Kent]

What stops me from building too many WP sites is the headache of updating them (WP and plugins) and the security holes (in any script).

[DogScout]

Originally Posted by Chris Kent

What stops me from building too many WP sites is the headache of updating them (WP and plugins) and the security holes (in any script).

After I find a stable version, I stop updating. Same with forums. Had one stable version run great for 8 years. Never saw a reason to upgrade for one little bell or whistle. I will go to WP3.01 and watch how stable it stays, but barring a security hole I cannot plug myself, I will probably stay with that as it looks pretty stable... at least at this point.

(I am resisting the temptation to SSL the whole thing. Lol.)

[John Durham]

I use homestead site builder myself and my sites rank fine.

[robertphillips]

I find html pages out rank Wordpress blogs. But have to say those wordpress does make it pretty easy to set up a niche quickly.

Regards,
Robert

[SageSound]

Sorry, I must be confused.

Last time I checked, Wordpress generates HTML code that is as simple or complex as the site designer wants it to be -- just like Dreamweaver. And often WAY LESS complex than FrontPage produces.

HTML is HTML. That's not what's causing a difference in rankings.

You can use a theme in Wordpress that will generate pages virtually indistinguishable from something you'd get from a simple hand-made HTML page. That's not why people use Wordpress, tho.

Rather than ranting on with unfounded opinions about what may or may not be the cause, how about somebody post some metrics that compares the internal SEO metrics of each of these sites. I'd bet the Wordpress site simply hasn't got as much "SEO garnish" on its pages.

Is that the fault of using Wordpress?

SHOW US AN APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON! Nothing here is more than just random thoughts and opinions.

[PeterGarety]

Well, I think that it has nothing to do with Wordpress or static HTML sites. Nobody ever told that Wordpress ranks better just because it is Wordpress. What most people mean is that Wordpress is easier to construct to get better rankings.

My experience shows that it all depends how you structure your site and how you construct the settings of your Wordpress blog.

Somebody told here about permalinks - well, I completely agree, it is one of the points in checklist you should get right, if you want to rank higher and outperform your competition.

[madison_avenue]

Don't you find it much harder to create navigation and menus on HTML sites? If a site is 100 pages+ Wordpress makes it easier to set links for navigation making the management a lot easier. Has anyone got any fast way of doing this with HTML?

[webkc]

Don't you find it much harder to create navigation and menus on HTML  sites? If a site is 100 pages+ Wordpress makes it easier to set links  for navigation making the management a lot easier. Has anyone got any  fast way of doing this with HTML?

I use include file on HTML pages and don have any problems with number of pages, I can even break down channels for navigation. Every time a new link needs to be added to navigation, its a simple change of one include file.

[Bruce NewMedia]

Originally Posted by Dario James

Now which ones do you think perform better regarding to rankings?
Well no it's not Wordpress like every marketer tells us to use!

It's the simple html sites.

In my opinion they rank almost twice as good.
Do you have the same experience?

BINGO...I have been seeing this same result for a long time, myself.

Most marketers are happy that WP blogs get indexed so fast or even ranked so quickly, or are easier to add content to, but over time, I see a very different result.

My simple html sites HOLD rankings much better. Regardless of the niche I still find this to be true.
_____
Bruce

[iobeek]

Originally Posted by madison_avenue

Don't you find it much harder to create navigation and menus on HTML sites? If a site is 100 pages+ Wordpress makes it easier to set links for navigation making the management a lot easier. Has anyone got any fast way of doing this with HTML?

I use webgen(google it). Categories and subcategories are no issue. Powerful tool once you get used to it(documentation).

[stumpy]

Isn't the main advantage of a blog the ease and speed with which you can add new pages or change the layout of the entire website?

[stumpy]

If you are using Front Page or Dream Weaver you get very poor HTML code. If you hand code the pages they are very small in comparison with those and have far less code than a blog page. So they can load for a user and be spidered much quickly than a blog page which will help you in Google and with users. I'm assuming of course that you have excellent HTML programming skills.

[stumpy]

If you are hand coding in HTML you need to be using PHP or ASP. Then you can change your entire website be changing the templates you have created almost as fast as with a blog.

[Robert Domino]

Originally Posted by stumpy

If you are hand coding in HTML you need to be using PHP or ASP. Then you can change your entire website be changing the templates you have created almost as fast as with a blog.

Exactly.

It is very easy to make an easy to edit non-WP site using php includes. I could just copy paste the includes from one website to another and build a new one with different settings.

For example, you can do a meta.php include, where you define your keywords and description and it plugs it in.

I still use WP, but it is a lot heavier.

The only reason I stopped doing the non-WP websites is because if you want to sell it, it's more complicated. There are very few people that still code the old way, so random Joe Sixpack doesn't want to buy that kind of website.

[Azlan]

from my personal opinion, there is no difference in ranking, it all matters on the content as well as the backlinks... but when it comes to maintenance and flipping the site, it will make a huge difference...

[JamesW]

I think if you built exactly the same backlinks to both html and WP pages, then the html pages would rank slightly higher.

However what I like about blogs is that once you have some authority, any new pages you create will be indexed quickly and start picking up some search engine traffic, whereas the same cannot always be said about any new html pages you create. Sometimes you have to send them a lot of new backlinks just to get them noticed by the search engines.

[Stuart Wider]

Originally Posted by SageSound

HTML is HTML. That's not what's causing a difference in rankings.

You can use a theme in Wordpress that will generate pages virtually indistinguishable from something you'd get from a simple hand-made HTML page. That's not why people use Wordpress, tho.

Sagesound is right,
If you know how WordPress themes work you can make the HTML WP produces look or act just about any way you like. Maybe its time for a theme called 'WP Super Handcoding Simulator'

[qsilver]

My simple html sites HOLD rankings much better. Regardless of the niche I still find this to be true.
_____
Bruce[/QUOTE]

Is it true that WP Blogs have to constantly be updated with fresh content to stay in the top rankings? Whereas an HTML site, once it is ranked, can be left alone and maintain it's rank?
I thought the advantage of HTML sites was that you can set and forget 'em.

[GJose]

I think it all depends on how you manage your static HTML site but for me WordPress is the best for SEO, that’s simple! Just because it is easier to modify, manage and build anything with it. WordPress changed my way to work on the internet.

[TimG]

97% of my sites are static html sites and they do extremely well as long as I build them right. I've never really been a big fan of Wordpress but do understand why other marketers like it so much.

Part of my reluctance to switch to it is because I truly prefer working with html code instead of trying to optimize a blog with plug-ins and such.

Glad to see you validate what I was also seeing with my own sites.

Respectfully,
Tim

[xrvel]

Basically wordpress outputs HTML too.
Just you can't change HTML easily especially if you dont know much about HTML code.
You can use wordpress to generate the page first, save the page as HTML, upload it, whats the difference?

[paulie888]

Originally Posted by xrvel

Basically wordpress outputs HTML too.
Just you can't change HTML easily especially if you dont know much about HTML code.
You can use wordpress to generate the page first, save the page as HTML, upload it, whats the difference?

This is true, but so much in Wordpress depends on the theme that you're using. If it's not SEO friendly and has clumsy/convoluted code, it can hurt your chances of ranking.

Both static HTML and Wordpress sites can rank equally well, as long as they're well designed. The issue with static HTML sites is that people tend to get very antsy and nervous about touching/modifying the raw HTML code, and this could hurt their chances of optimizing the site properly.

[qsilver]

I want to set up some adsense sites, and I was considering buying the
software xsitepro for speed and ease of use.

I want to set these up correctly until they rank well, then leave them alone
to move on to the next site.

Is there an advantage to using xsitepro for this, or should I use
Wordpress with static pages, so I don't have to tinker with
them once their established?

[af]

Here's a theory:
WP sites are notoriously slow. Especially when you load it with (poorly written) plug-ins. Google rewards fast sites. Raw HTML/custom php is fast. Could that have anything to do with it?

[donhx]

Originally Posted by paulie888

This is true, but so much in Wordpress depends on the theme that you're using. If it's not SEO friendly and has clumsy/convoluted code, it can hurt your chances of ranking.

Both static HTML and Wordpress sites can rank equally well, as long as they're well designed. The issue with static HTML sites is that people tend to get very antsy and nervous about touching/modifying the raw HTML code, and this could hurt their chances of optimizing the site properly.

This is my experience too. I would have to see the stats on identical sites (one HTML, one WP) before I would be convinced one is better than the other.

Based upon my knowledge of HTML and SEO, I'd say any differences are minimal if you are using a clean theme. Certainly the ease of updating WP would tip the balance in its favor.

[UMS]

If you aren't using caching on your WP sites, then you definitely should. This reduces the overheads of PHP processing and database calls.

It pretty much makes it a true HTML to HTML comparison.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by stumpy

Isn't the main advantage of a blog the ease and speed with which you can add new pages or change the layout of the entire website?

Being able to change the layout easily is not necessarily a good thing. If you build an audience that returns to your site regularly, changing the theme too often can be confusing. I've experienced this myself. I'll click one of my bookmarks, expecting to see the same basic layout as when I set the bookmark. When the page loads, often slowly, the graphics are different, the layout is changed, as are the fonts, and nothing is where I expect it to be.

Originally Posted by qsilver

I want to set up some adsense sites, and I was considering buying the
software xsitepro for speed and ease of use.

I want to set these up correctly until they rank well, then leave them alone
to move on to the next site.

Is there an advantage to using xsitepro for this, or should I use
Wordpress with static pages, so I don't have to tinker with
them once their established?

I never understood why people would go to the trouble to set up a Wordpress site, where the main advantage is in the posts, and then use static pages. Why not just find a good page editor instead.

For what you want to do XSP is a better choice.

Using WP as a static page editor is like hiring a top notch pitmaster and handing him a vegetarian menu...

[waken]

Surprisingly...

What I read today is totally the opposite of the majority voice some months ago..

Hmm.. lazy to dig that old thread.. but just surprised with the opinion this time.

[graham23s]

I have wondered the same, i used to hand code my sites but the easiness of one-click wordpress setups with fantastico was to much of a lure LOL

The best program i have found for html sites is xsitepro, it has options for everything and is pretty light on the code output.

cheers

Graham

[Big__Lebowski]

to be honest it doesn't matter, WP or HTML or Joomla or Movable Type - just stick to basic rules: 1. good text formating (Title, H1, H2 etc.) 2. get links 3. make good content.

[darkmaster]

as per I am concerned, for me wordpress works better, they index faster and are friendly with search engines.

[Jack Sprat]

Originally Posted by SageSound

Sorry, I must be confused.

Last time I checked, Wordpress generates HTML code that is as simple or complex as the site designer wants it to be -- just like Dreamweaver. And often WAY LESS complex than FrontPage produces.

HTML is HTML. That's not what's causing a difference in rankings.

As far as I can see there are two things that are different between a static HTML page (i.e. the page is a file) and the equivalent Wordpress page.

1) The header information. I have turned a Wordpress blog into static HTML pages and there are quite a few differences between the Wordpress header and the static HTML header

2) Page load speed. I tested the time to create and serve pages in Wordpress and the equivalent static HTML site by downloading the site using the wget command to a folder within my hosting account (therefore network speed was not an issue). The test was in downloading identical sites since the static site I downloaded was the static version of the Wordpress blog reuploaded (hopefully makes sense). The result was that the static equivalent page loaded 10x faster than the original Wordpress page. However this was without a caching program on the Wordpress blog

[User-Name]

If I want to add some new feature in one or two clicks I can search a database for the latest free plugins (most have been rated and tested)
With rssfeeds I can tell hundreds of agregators I have updated my content instantly.
Using onlywire and ping.fm the whole world is going to know I have fresh content.
I can instantly tell socialbookmaking sites how clever I am.
The list goes on and on.
I used html for 10 years I find it much easier and also faster to rank top of google using a blog because of all this leverage.

[JSProjects]

I still love HTML. Though, for my clients I usually build Wordpress sites. (It's just much easier for them to manage.)

If you're creating a super targeted, small niche site, nothing beats HTML IMO. Target your keywords, optimize the crap out of it, add a few new pages a week, and do some basic SEO.

And I agree with the posters that said speed is essential. I've found this to be true, too. My mini HTML sites load fast as heck and always seem to rank higher than bloated WP sites.

Could it just be a coincidence? Who knows.

[Muhammad Mustafa]

Have you tried to use clean and simple WP theme + minimal plugins + remove WP footprints + use example.com/page-title.html permalink structure??
I've tried this myself for many sites and it works like charm! its almost equal to static HTML sites in both ranking and speed, give this strategy a try and see the results yourself

[attorneydavid]

I just set up a weebly site for this reason. It seems to have the ease of wordpress with the html benefits.

[christoschiotis]

As other people wrote here, comparing wordpress with html is like comparing apples and oranges.

HTML is the language, wordpress is a platform that produces html templates. For the search engines there is NO difference at all.

The thing that makes the wordpress, in some cases, better is the ease of maintain, the out-of-the-box, permalinks, seo plugins etc. Things that makes easier for everyone to create a seo-optimized website, without any knowledge.

But all these generate also some cons for the wordpress side. Many database calls, includes of many different files, a huge pile of javascripts etc. making the site load quite slow. And load speed is something you have to consider when we talk about search engines and especially google.

[Eswar]

I have both html and worpress websites. My html websites bring me 90% of income. . They are stable on ranking.

[MONEYDON]

Originally Posted by qsilver

I want to set up some adsense sites, and I was considering buying the
software xsitepro for speed and ease of use.

I want to set these up correctly until they rank well, then leave them alone
to move on to the next site.

Is there an advantage to using xsitepro for this, or should I use
Wordpress with static pages, so I don't have to tinker with
them once their established?

I use x-site pro for ease of use. I have no problem using xsite pro to outrank numerous authority sites etc. The "Guru's" i think love wordpress so they can sell u the next magic plug-in.

If u are in the business of local business sites such as myself. X site pro works like a champ.

I also do this let's say i am doing a site for say Wedding Singer Atlanta Ga. I did this recently, i made her wedding page Wedding-Singer-Atlanta-Ga in the file name which X site pro makes it so easy to do. Anyways not only does the home page rank in 3rd the page with that custom file name ranks above it in 2nd, giving her 2 spots on front page.

With the right nav bars and stuff look around x site u can put together a pretty amazing looking site in no time.

Also about the load times. My XSITE websites load faster than 90% of the sites on the internet according to some sources i use.

On page seo is more important than the platform u are using to an extent. Of course u dont want old bloated code from old frontpage or dreamweaver etc.

Google doesn't LOVE wordpress, google loves google

X site is really great and they also have a very quick and responsive help forum.

Good Luck

[samual james]

Wordpress sites are not stable in terms of ranking. Its easy to get ranking with wordpress site but its quite hard to maintain ranking

[phil5509]

There is no doubt that if you aren't careful and use the wrong theme - or one that is configured 'badly' then Wordpress can cause some SEO issues. On the other hand, with a well-crafted theme and the right plug-ins you can create Wordpress based sites that will rank very well. I don't think there is a single 'correct' answer to this debate I'm afraid and the choice between static HTML and Wordpress should largely come down to what sort of site you want to create. As with most options, there are pros and cons.