- Joined
- Dec 16, 2004
- Posts
- 274
- Reaction score
- 10
What most interested me is your statements about HTML sites being worht more. Is this true or does it depend on how well a database drive site is designed?
Like Rob says it depends on how easy it is for someone to maintain. A beginner with PHP and MYsql can take the whole site down with a comma in the wrong place and not realise what they have done.
can you quickly say what Sentinel does - is there a ASP version or do I not need this, I may end up using a MySQL with an ASP front end just because access is not "man enough"
Sentinel is one of several add on modules for phpnuke that are designed to stop hacking attempts. Get more info here http://www.ravenphpscripts.com however if you are using ASP then you won't need it.
I looked at the two URLs but need a quick explaination why one is better than the other - and if you know anywhere i can read more about this and how I should layout my pages before i get too in it - i would appreciate it.
The difference in the URL's is that many search engines refuse to spider the first one for fear of getting into an endless loop. Whereas the second one has no operators like & ? etc.
Plain HTML is by far the best way to develop a site from an SEO point of view but of course it has it's limitations. Database driven sites are more flexible but harder to get listed in search engines. This is why you don't see pages from places like football365.com in the google index - because it won't spider those pages (last time I looked). That goes for many top sites like bbc.co.uk etc.
I spent a long time making my site appear as if it was plain html when in fact it's completely database driven.
Does that clear it up?