Comments on: http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015 Peter Van Dijck's weblog Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:53:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Peter http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51721 Peter Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:58:08 +0000 http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51721 OK, I see your point of enterprise engines. Although I'm pretty sure Verity can handle query strings. I got upset because you were saying something that's clearly not true, except in certain very specific cases like the above, which you should then have mentioned. All in all, no big deal. You *do* have credibility. That's why the *tough love*. OK, I see your point of enterprise engines. Although I’m pretty sure Verity can handle query strings.

I got upset because you were saying something that’s clearly not true, except in certain very specific cases like the above, which you should then have mentioned.

All in all, no big deal. You *do* have credibility. That’s why the *tough love*.

]]> By: Anil http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51612 Anil Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:01:14 +0000 http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51612 To be clear, this may just be a matter of speaking to a different application/context than the one you're thinking of. Many people use Movable Type to replace home-grown or out-of-date internal content management systems on an intranet. That's the specific context in which the article was written, and I think those points *do* apply, compared to the tools that many companies use today. In that context "external" search engines can be an enterprise indexing system like Verity, for which the lack of query strings in a URL does often present a significant benefit. Obviously, in traditional public blogging, there are benefits to having both real static pages and dynamically-generated pages; That's why Movable Type offers both. This is just trying to explain the benefits of choosing one of those options to people who are new to the platform. Make sense? I'd hope we have enough experience and credibility that you'd know there might be more information that explains our statements; We have no history of lying to anyone and we're not going to start now. To be clear, this may just be a matter of speaking to a different application/context than the one you’re thinking of. Many people use Movable Type to replace home-grown or out-of-date internal content management systems on an intranet. That’s the specific context in which the article was written, and I think those points *do* apply, compared to the tools that many companies use today. In that context “external” search engines can be an enterprise indexing system like Verity, for which the lack of query strings in a URL does often present a significant benefit.

Obviously, in traditional public blogging, there are benefits to having both real static pages and dynamically-generated pages; That’s why Movable Type offers both. This is just trying to explain the benefits of choosing one of those options to people who are new to the platform. Make sense? I’d hope we have enough experience and credibility that you’d know there might be more information that explains our statements; We have no history of lying to anyone and we’re not going to start now.

]]> By: Pete Prodoehl http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51558 Pete Prodoehl Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:01:03 +0000 http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51558 * Static pages get delivered faster. This assumes disk access is faster than database access. This may or may not be the case. * Static pages are easier to index. This one is just silly. It all depends on the markup. * Static pages show a better face to external search engines. I say false. Sites using clean URI's are easier to index. * Meaningful file names improve usability. Meaning URI's improve usability. * No need to worry about database uptime. As long as no functions of your site use a database. * Static pages are actually quite mobile. Um, sure, you can copy a bunch of static HTML pages to a mobile device. Woohoo... * Static pages get delivered faster.

This assumes disk access is faster than database access. This may or may not be the case.

* Static pages are easier to index.

This one is just silly. It all depends on the markup.

* Static pages show a better face to external search engines.

I say false. Sites using clean URI’s are easier to index.

* Meaningful file names improve usability.

Meaning URI’s improve usability.

* No need to worry about database uptime.

As long as no functions of your site use a database.

* Static pages are actually quite mobile.

Um, sure, you can copy a bunch of static HTML pages to a mobile device. Woohoo…

]]> By: álvaro http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51555 álvaro Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:38 +0000 http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2006/01/31/3015/3015#comment-51555 From my experience (building a service which serves 4 million pages a month) I agree with that, static pages get better indexing. From my experience (building a service which serves 4 million pages a month) I agree with that, static pages get better indexing.

]]>