Do Blogs Rank Better Than Websites In The Search Engines?

[StevenSaliba]

Just curious what you warriors thought. Feel free to share what you think/know.

[PLRwithAlex]

I've been able to get blogs indexed faster and ranking faster than normal HTML sites.

Just my experience.

:-)

[AndrewHansen]

If you had a blog page and a html page, both in the same market, domains the same age, with the same number of links from the same places, with the same amount of content on them with equal on page SEO...

I don't think there's any longer a reason to think that the blog page would outrank the html page. The ONLY difference is the pinging, which used to be weighted more but these days provides only the slightest advantage in speed of indexing IF all else is equal.

The advantage of blogs is from other places, ease of use, simple site structure, inherently dynamic, opens you up to new linking strategies, and so on.

Hope that helps.

Andrew

[Andyhenry]

I'm with Andrew on this (Hi Andrew - nice name )

I know people say "you should use Wordpress" etc. but when you break it down to nuts and bolts - it's all just html and php for bots to read - so the mechanics of creating it are optional.

You can get the same results for either if you create the same things.

You can get static pages ranked better than some CMS default settings, but CMSs like Wordpress just have some stuff done by default that you would have to do manually.

There's no difference in results - just different ways to achieve the same thing.

For example - if you make a static like (I just finished one and had to do this today) you may want to create an rss feed for it - if you do it with Wordpress you get that built in. However, if you use a CMS - you have to pay attention to it's needs in a way you don't when you're building the page yourself.

Andy

[Sean Phillips]

Originally Posted by AndrewHansen

If you had a blog page and a html page, both in the same market, domains the same age, with the same number of links from the same places, with the same amount of content on them with equal on page SEO...

I don't think there's any longer a reason to think that the blog page would outrank the html page.

Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, why do you think that? Have you done SEO on both types of pages?

Personally I've only done SEO on html pages ("normal" websites) and Youtube videos, so I can't comment on the html vs. blog dynamic, but based on my research I was under the impression that blogs are easier to rank.

Incidentally, Youtube videos get the prize for Easiest Thing to Rank in the Universe. For anyone who's working on SEO but hasn't gotten around to making videos yet, I highly recommend you make one as a test. Just put it up on Youtube and then see how quickly it gets on page 1 with just a few backlinks. Ridiculous.

[ramone_johnny]

A Blog IS a html page! A page is a page is a page is HTML!!!!!!

From experience CMS such as Wordpress seem to be much more attractive for Google, as in they are indexed quicker - for a reason Im not sure of. I cant speak for other search engines however.

[Cataclysm1987]

Statistically, yes, blogs rank higher in the search engines than standard pages for a number of reasons:

1. A blog implies that you are generating an ongoing source of content for your website that is regularly updated. This makes Google happy.

2. A blog creates a source of communication between yourself and your visitors, improving user experience and again, making the almighter Google happy.

3. A blog also implies that you are more or less over about any business or marketing you might be doing on your website. This makes you look less shady to Google than say, some spammer website with a buncha crap.

Mat Bacack uses them in a number of his businesses as do guys like George Brown and Michael Jones. If you need some templates to get you started blogging, check out the link in my signature for a ton of free content you can upload. Hope any of that helps.

[Cataclysm1987]

Er, scratch that, my bad. The blog stuff isn't free, you pay for it, but it's one of those added bonuses :P

[AndrewHansen]

Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987

1. A blog implies that you are generating an ongoing source of content for your website that is regularly updated. This makes Google happy.

2. A blog creates a source of communication between yourself and your visitors, improving user experience and again, making the almighter Google happy.

3. A blog also implies that you are more or less over about any business or marketing you might be doing on your website. This makes you look less shady to Google than say, some spammer website with a buncha crap.

I am as big an advocate of blogs as anyone... but let's think about this:

1. Yes, regularly updated content is a good thing. But are you saying regularly updated content on a blog is better than regularly updated content on a non blog site?

2. I've seen no evidence, either experienced or researched by another marketer showing that if all else is equal, a page that allows comments will outrank a page that doesn't. Comments ARE a good thing, and DO provide a medium of communication, a tool for relationship building, a tool for user generated content that can be beneficial in other ways, but the physical act of having comments allowed is not a ranking factor.

3. A blog implies that you're over spamming and marketing? I don't think that even requires a response.

People, blogs ARE awesome, there's no doubt, and they have SEO advantages, but there's also plenty of ways blogs can SUCK for SEO purposes. There's no need to perpetuate the myth that by some magical coincidence, blogs just happen to rank better... maybe they did a few years ago but not any more.

Andrew

[Andyhenry]

Originally Posted by Cataclysm1987

Statistically, yes, blogs rank higher in the search engines than standard pages
.

That's just wrong. It may be how it looks - but that's also because there are so many and many newbies start with a blog - there's in fact no difference technically.

[SimonHarrison]

Put up static pages and install a blog in a sub directory linking back to those static pages in a silo structure.

Then you'll see ranking

[remotedb]

The difference is in how blogs are configured and set up. They tend to invite user comment which essentially keeps content fresh. They also ease the process of on page SEO. It's not that blogs are inherently ranked higher than non-blog sites, it's that people who set up a blog tend to do more SEO with them by "filling in the blanks".

I'm sure you could do just as well with a straight up HTML page, but blogs tend to force you to do some level of SEO, HTML pages don't. So if you are a newbie and don't know that your keywords should be mentioned both in the Title and the description and should appear in at least one H1 tag, then your cheesy frontpage HTML page won't have that stuff in it.

But Wordpress asks you what you want for a Title and keywords and so forth. Then it automatically inserts those elements into your page.

[ramone_johnny]

Originally Posted by AndrewHansen

1. Yes, regularly updated content is a good thing. But are you saying regularly updated content on a blog is better than regularly updated content on a non blog site?

Blogs are useful for people that are less knowledgeable with SEO. They automate many of the technical processes, which in term reduces the likelihood of poor overall site structure and configuration.

For total beginners, would regularly updated content on a blog be better than a static HTML site? Absolutely, especially if they have no knowledge of correct markup, meta tags, robots and or sitemap configs. Heck, most beginners wouldnt even know what HTML stood for.

But for anyone who knows what theyre doing - probably no difference.

We've debated this numerous times in WF, and the answer is always "depends"

[Marhelper]

Originally Posted by PLRwithAlex

I've been able to get blogs indexed faster and ranking faster than normal HTML sites.

Just my experience.

:-)

I have had the opposite experience. I have had much better luck with Joomla sites over WP.

[ramone_johnny]

Originally Posted by SimonHarrison

Put up static pages and install a blog in a sub directory linking back to those static pages in a silo structure.

Then you'll see ranking

Hmmm....interesting

[AndrewHansen]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Blogs are useful for people that are less knowledgeable with SEO. They automate many of the technical processes, which in term reduces the likelihood of poor overall site structure and configuration.

Agreed!

And that means we're having a different argument.

Now it's not whether blogs or HTML websites rank better.

It's whether more experienced marketers, or less experienced marketers rank better in the search engines

So "depends" doesn't depend on blog or HTML site... it "depends" on your skill at SEO. And that's a fair and obvious call.

[Andyhenry]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Hmmm....interesting

That's just because of the structure and linking - you can get that result in many ways.

I have sites that do MUCH better than using wordpress - but I'm under no illusions that I couldn't (eventually) get the same results with Wordpress - or a static site.

Some tools make certain things easier - blogging is great for many reasons - but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of creating effective sites.

Andy

[ramone_johnny]

Really the question is, (well the way I see it anyway) is .....

Do static or dynamic sites rank better in the search engines, which put that way, is a ridiculous question.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by StevenSaliba

Just curious what you warriors thought.

I think (i) that blogs are web sites; (ii) that most of the people who say that search-engines love blogs actually mean that search-engines love regularly updated websites. But internet marketing's a bit like that, isn't it? Most people actually mean something slightly different from what they say, most of the time.

[ramone_johnny]

Originally Posted by Alexa Smith

...Most people actually mean something slightly different from what they say, most of the time.

Yes you're right. Thats why I said you were "moderately" good looking!

Im off to bed, the suns coming up here!

G'night

[JayXtreme]

Blogs rank better than websites in the search engines

[JayXtreme]

Websites rank better than blogs in the search engines

[JayXtreme]

^ ^ ^

Both those statements are correct.

The better ranking "website" or "blog" will be the one that is structured well, and designed with the end user in mind.

Peace

Jay

[Andyhenry]

that's what we needed - thanks Jay

[RyanLima]

My Blogger Blogs used to get ranked faster but I think that has to do with the fact that google owns blogger.com

Anyhow Ive tested hundreds of websites and blogs and in my experience it all comes down to what kind of content you have on your pages. Also the amount of backlinks your creating.

Hope I helped.

[StevenSaliba]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

^ ^ ^

Both those statements are correct.

The better ranking "website" or "blog" will be the one that is structured well, and designed with the end user in mind.

Peace

Jay

Well said.

P.S. Chelsea are going to win the league this year. lol who knows.