11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Blog posts vs static pages...is either just as good for SEO?

by carlos123
8 replies
I know this topic has probably been beat to death here but given that I do not see any current threads on this topic I thought I would start one up.

I am interested in people's take on this because I will shortly be rolling out a new marketing push to businesses to convince them to let me build websites for them and I want to be able to defend my premise that static pages are just as good if not better than blog posts to them.

It seems to me that Google loves content (not WordPress per se). The content that WordPress puts out is spit out as HTML. So whether that HTML is served up by WordPress, Joomla, Drupal, Concrete5 or any other...it's still just HTML.

So...given that this is the case, one does not need WordPress at all to make pages that Google likes. One can make them just fine in any CMS (Content Management System) that one cares to use.

I mean as long as the on-page SEO criteria per Google guidelines are met...it doesn't matter.

Or does it?

Carlos

PS. I will be using Concrete5 by the way which runs circles around WordPress with respect to being easy to use.
#blog #good #pagesis #posts #seo #static
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    It's not about HTML.

    It's the fact that blogs like WP have many features like RSS, post/ping which also attribute to search engine rankings. A static site (usually) does not have RSS or pings if something is posted.
    Blogs are simply better since they use more of all those "web2.0" features, and this doesnt even take into account whatever enhancements/plugins you put on your blog afterwards, eg. bookmarking features etc..
    A static site doesnt even come close.
    I personally don't make a difference between a "blog" and a "site"..its a no-brainer for me to use WP for whatever purpose.
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3521007].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author carlos123
      Hi George,

      Originally Posted by GeorgR. View Post

      It's not about HTML.

      It's the fact that blogs like WP have many features like RSS, post/ping which also attribute to search engine rankings. A static site (usually) does not have RSS or pings if something is posted.
      Blogs are simply better since they use more of all those "web2.0" features, and this doesnt even take into account whatever enhancements/plugins you put on your blog afterwards, eg. bookmarking features etc..
      A static site doesnt even come close.
      I personally don't make a difference between a "blog" and a "site"..its a no-brainer for me to use WP for whatever purpose.
      I'll grant you that using WP is easier from the standpoint that it comes with many things either by way of plugin or capability but any of those things can be added just as well to a static site.

      When I stay static site by the way I do not mean a site created manually in HTML, by hand.

      I mean a site created with some CMS like Concrete5 but where instead of a blog "page" you have multiple single pages in place of various blog posts on one page type of thing.

      Static is probably not a good word to use for such but that's what I mean.

      Another thing about WP SEO "natural" capabilities. It seems to me that many of these touted capabilities really don't make much of a difference with respect to ranking. If a page for example includes Google quality guidelines and has it's on-page SEO well done the SEO benefit to something like RSS feeds is minimal in comparison (unless one has set out to use RSS specifically for increased ranking which is certainly beneficial but not something most sites use when compared to basic SEO).

      But something like Concrete5 has RSS capabilities as well so I think that might be a mute point.

      I mean is it not possible to send out an RSS feed for new pages that are created as opposed to blog posts on one page? If I am not mistaken I believe it is which would negate any WP advantage for such over using a CMS (like Concrete5) with respect to an RSS feed at least.

      The other problem I see with a WP blog vs individual pages using a CMS is that most site owners of said blogs have absolutely no clue as to what these capabilities are or even how to properly use the plugins that might give them some edge.

      So while WP SEO capabilities are well touted the reality of said supposed benefit isn't nearly what it would seem to be...at least to me.

      When you take into account how easy it is to use something like Concrete5 in comparison to WP for creating and maintaining a site with a blog vs just a blog with WP I think the supposed benefit of using WP as a platform and for SEO benefit is far less superior than would initially meet the eye.

      Carlos
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3524283].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    In answer to your question, yes, a static page and a page made on wordpress have just as much chance of being ranked if everything was the same. If you had all the same meta tags, the same onpage SEO, the same links to and from other pages, the same content, etc.

    At the end of the day Wordpress is just a CMS. A lot of people will tell you that Google prefers blogs over static pages, but that isn't true. It just so happens that platforms like Wordpress produce search engine friendly pages and site structures. But that is not to say you can not replicate that same setup with just a static website.

    Another reason people will tell you Google will rank Wordpress sites over static sites is because using a blog platform like Wordpress tells the search engine there will be frequently updated content. That is also not true. There are plenty of static websites out there being updated on a daily basis. There are plenty of blogs out there that have not been updated since they were put online.

    The platform you use to publish your pages is not important here. How you use that platform is what will make the difference. Wordpress just makes a lot of this stuff push-button simple.
    Signature

    .


    .

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3521020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author carlos123
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      The platform you use to publish your pages is not important here. How you use that platform is what will make the difference. Wordpress just makes a lot of this stuff push-button simple.
      I would agree with that.

      Thing is that I have been developing with WordPress (for clients not for myself) for some time and let me tell you...it is a pain to get it to work like a CMS. I don't mean for some simple 5 page site with a contact form. I mean for sites where different pages use different templates, where you have a navigation menu in a widget as opposed to being the default WP menu, where you want to style the default WP menu to be like a rollover and drop down, etc..

      WP is a pain! I know. I have had to work with the underlying code and I am always having to hack it to get it to do what I want.

      Using a piece of software whose roots are being a true CMS is such a pleasure in comparison. It doesn't get in my way.

      That's why I began to wonder about how to convince future clients to let me use something other than WP both for their sakes and mine.

      I guess the thing is that I will have to work up a list of specific SEO benefits contained in WP and see if I can come up with an equivalent in Concrete5 to make a true comparison and to be able to more adequately convince clients to let me use Concrete5.

      Carlos
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3524308].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
        In my opinion there is more HTML difference going from one theme to another versus using Pages or Posts on the same Wordpress theme.

        If you are concerned about on page SEO factors, it's more important to look at your theme.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3524329].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author O0o0O
    Both are just as good for SEO. With that being said, blog posts are typically easier for the novice Internet Marketer to SEO optimize because all they have to do is fill in the correct information, and the blogging platform performs the rest of the tasks such as placing them into the template correctly. Title tags, meta tags, description and other characteristics are usually taken care of by the blogging platform so that people who don't know much about SEO can simply focus on creating and distributing relevant content to their audience. This is favorable the blogging platform because it gains more users, and it is favorable to the users because they gain more exposure in the search engines as they continue to update their blogs.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3524300].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michelle Green
    Wordpress does allow you to copy and paste a ping service list, which notifies search engines and other directories everytime you update your blog. So you basically have a built-in promotion feature that you don't have with a static site.
    Signature
    Try Something Different & Prosper Like Never Before!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3526629].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anonymous Affiliate
    Technically wise, Google doesn't give a WP blog any "SEO bonus". The difference however comes with WP's built-in features such as RSS and auto-pinging, sitemap structure, etc. It's just easier to manage with a WP blog. But if you applied the same features on a standard HTML site, your SEO score would be equal.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3526766].message }}

Trending Topics