[wp-hackers] 2.next - faster [flat/static build]
davebytes at comcast.net
Mon Feb 6 23:53:02 GMT 2006
Nope. A static (or WP-Cache'd) page literally looks the same to the bot or
browser. Many 'dynamic' pages are actually the same every pageload, have no
changing content, thus are very well sped up just by using wp-cache (or
similar caching on other systems).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Daulton" <apakuni at gmail.com>
To: "WP Hackers" <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] 2.next - faster [flat/static build]
| Agreed. However isn't there an SEO gain from parsing the static page
| itself? Happy to be educated to the contrary.
| On 2/6/06 2:31 PM, "Matt Mullenweg" <m at mullenweg.com> wrote:
| > Douglas Daulton wrote:
| >> In addition to tweaking SQL, creating a native option for a flat/static
| >> build (like Moveable Type) would reduce server load and increase SEO
| >> 2.next. There are some plug-ins out there that do this. Why not look
| >> them all and build a "best of show" into the core.
| > Just to dispel a common misperception, there is NO SEO benefit by having
| > static files as opposed to WP's nice permalinks. They both look "static"
| > to search engines.
| wp-hackers mailing list
| wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers