[Typo3] simulate static? pros and cons

[Jean-Baptiste Rio]

Ries van Twisk wrote:
> Jay Austad wrote:
> 
>> So, the general consensus seems to be to definitely use  
>> simulateStatic or RealURL.  Do any extensions have problems with these?
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2005, at 4:02 AM, Jean-Baptiste Rio wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Dmitry Dulepov wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Jay Austad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone give me a list of reasons why I might want to simulate
>>>>> static pages?
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> Much better Google indexing -- much more visitors to your site.
>>>>
>>>> Urls are easier to remember -- looks more atractive (compare
>>>> "http://mydomain.com/index.php?id=25843" with
>>>> "http://mydomain.com/Cheapest_auto_parts.25843.html").
>>>>
>>>> Dmitry.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Google indexing is the most interesting reason.
>>>
>>> Plus, the fact that it is Typo3 core function and not an external
>>> extension. It works fine, it's fast and, for my point of view, the  best
>>> advantage is that it's MySQL free-consuming (no intermediate table  
>>> as it
>>> is in the my RealURL extension, if i remember well).
>>>
>>> Just M2P
>>>
>>> Jean-Baptiste
>>>   
> 
> I think simulateStatic doesn't show your tree structure well where as 
> realUrl does that really great which will help SEO a lot.
> We use realUrl...
> 
> Ries
> 
At the contrary, Google provide a better page ranking for first level 
pages, so with simulateStatic, you will show all your pages at first 
level => best rank.
It depends of what it's your goal ;)

Jean-Baptiste