Anyone Out There Still Building Static HTML Sites?
So I pretty much have got building and launching these micro niche blogs down to a science now. I have really learned a lot over the last year, quite a few errors in judgment with purchasing domain names, and even quite a few more mistakes in my thought process in running these what I call, “Drag, Drop and Forget” WordPress sites. Needless to say things are going very well now, but it would have been nice to not have made so many mistakes. I guess though, making mistakes is a huge part of learning.
About two weeks ago I was curious to see if search engines look at old fashion static HTML sites differently than blogs. Now, I can’t really prove this, but in my opinion it sure does seem like Google is just filled with blogs in their search results. Seriously, am I the only one who sees this?
Anyway, about two weeks ago I decided to load up my good old trusty copy of FrontPage. I did some keyword research, found a very nice domain name and proceeded to build a static HTML web page. The only difference with this compared to the old school sites I used to build many years ago, is with this site, I made use off all the tools that are available today that weren’t available many years ago. Also too, I have really gained a lot of experience by using WordPress and I am sure that has helped a lot too.
So are there people who still build static HTML pages? It sure was pretty cool to crank up FrontPage and NotePad again. It was even more entertaining to see how well my site ranks in Google. After less than two weeks I rank on the front page (Top Ten Results) for the keyword phrase I chose to target. Seeing how well this did, I spent about an hour today launching another one.
If these little static HTML sites prove to be as effective as the first one I built, I very well might start doing more of them over doing WordPress blogs. The problem I have with WordPress is the heavy demand on the server. Loading a WordPress post or page takes up a lot more system resources compared to loading up a static HTML page. So for people like me, who have quite a few WordPress sites, the web hosting bill can become quite expensive.
Do you still build static HTML web pages? Drop a comment and share your thoughts?
| 3.1 |
12 Comments! Join The Discussion by Leaving Your Comment.
What do you have to say about this post? Leave a comment!
Date/Time: 9-9-2008 21:06:57 Comment #21834
I haven’t built one in a long time but someone is asking me to do one for them. I’ll have to brush up on frontpage.
Date/Time: 9-9-2008 22:28:33 Comment #21841
I miss the old HTML sites. I never did learn how to use frontpage, I did my entire first site from scratch. Wrote all the code as I went along. Then I found an online HTML editor and felt like a fool. LOL
I might have to build a couple pages one of these days just for laughs.
Cool post.
Check out Christine Senter’s last blog post..Creative Interviews
Date/Time: 9-9-2008 22:45:52 Comment #21844
Hi Garry,
When you say that you did some keyword research…. Are you building the site for one specific keyword? How do you get the web site to show up for that keyword? Is that keyword part of the web site address? Then you write articles that always contain that keyword? Is that it in a nutshell?
Thank you in advance.
Excellent blog. You blog like a machine! LOL
Date/Time: 9-10-2008 00:39:56 Comment #21856
I still create static sites yes. A site that I am currently trying to promote with PPC is a review site that I did.
Although I don’t use any editors or software, other then Notepad++. Everything else adds extra code that isn’t needed and hand coding it lets me know exactly where everything is plus I can structure it for easy reading.
I think the only software that could get close to hand coding would be DreamWeaver but that costs way too much money and for me it is easy to hand code anyways.
Ok well the site is somewhat dynamic as I use a database to pull keywords and place them in certain spots but I still consider it a static site.
Check out Jarret’s last blog post..FeedBurner Error Fixed!
Date/Time: 9-10-2008 00:43:06 Comment #21857
What is the site url, I’d like to check it out.
Date/Time: 9-10-2008 06:38:56 Comment #21890
I don’t build static html pages, but I do alot with PHP generated HTML. I haven’t really launched a niche site like this but I would be interested to see what the results would be like.
Do you think the SERPS are filled with blog results because not everybody knows how to build static / dynamic sites that are not blogs?
I think that this could be part of the reason, but the social aspect of a blog could have something to do with it. Allowing your users to participate in your site gives you more content.
I think another reason is syndicated content. Since Wordpress Pings services, handles RSS feeds, sitemaps and linking multiple pages and posts together this creates a lot of content that wouldn’t be there.
Perhaps a competition or challenge is needed. My guess would be that given the same amount of time the WP site would flourish in a small amount. The custom developed site may take longer to pick up, but could out rank it in the long term. Its really hard to say though.
What do you think?
Check out Owen’s last blog post..Recent Software Updates.
Date/Time: 9-10-2008 10:46:01 Comment #21927
I still do static pages. In my opinion that is where you have the most control over your SEO. Yes PHP is great and makes life easy but good old fashioned html still is the meat and potatoes of solid design and structure. I know I will probably get some argument over this but for me it works. My biggest money making sites are all static html sites and each one ranks on the front page of Google for their primary search terms.
Check out Eric D’s last blog post..From 333 to Top 25 on 45n5.com In One Year
Date/Time: 9-10-2008 22:42:14 Comment #21989
“Yes PHP is great and makes life easy but good old fashioned html still is the meat and potatoes of solid design and structure.”
I agree with you 100%. PHP and any other programming language along with all of the plugins and what not that come with WordPress only make the tasks of SEO easier. They don’t make SEO itself any easier, they don’t provide the keywords and titles needed and they definitely don’t provide the backlinks.
WordPress and programming languages are an “accessory” to SEO.
Date/Time: 9-11-2008 08:25:16 Comment #22032
‘WordPress and programming languages are an “accessory” to SEO.’
You see, I wasn’t talking about Wordpress. If you know what your doing PHP can provide the titles, keywords and backlinks. Just ask the blackhats.
Date/Time: 9-11-2008 16:40:14 Comment #22089
i completed my first site last month, but it was an obituary site for a relative. at first i was going to do it in drupal, but decided it was only in three pages, so i tried doing it with dreamweaver. oh my god, stuff you think you know, because you read on it, until you actually try it, you dont know anything. css, audio, photo gallery, guestbook. it would up 17mb—for three pages! obviously i didnt know what i was doing. and pluging in a guestbook, audio and photo gallery was a lot of trickier than i thought if if are not using a fool-proof cms that shows you what to do. it turned out well, however. and seeing as i will not have a lot of traffic, just a few visits a month, i will leave it as is. but i would have to get really good and efficient with html before i try to make a full site with a hundred pages.
Date/Time: 10-16-2008 01:20:38 Comment #24205
Old fashion static HTML sites differently than blogs. Word Press is really helpful in getting information
Date/Time: 11-1-2008 20:03:32 Comment #25578
I make static a static html site (and a blog) but I do it dynamically from emacs.
With the number of widgets and plugins these days, a static html site can be pretty dynamic.
IMHO, a lot of web platforms and software are overkill. People spend so much time trying to automate their sites or to include the newest technologies that they don’t take time to build up good content.
There’s something to be said for a hand-crafted static site, provided that it has enough content.