Brett_Tabke
msg:83182 | 1:52 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Part of SEO today is generating linkbacks. To do that, you need an easy-to-bookmark, easy-to-remember, easy-to-copy : aka: an easy to link to url. Most designers and optimizers will tell you that your changes of getting those links backs goes up by multiple percentages when you use a standard file extension. It has been my experience that people will not link to nonstandard extensions nearly as often as htm or html extensions.
|
ogletree
msg:83183 | 1:59 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0) |
As far as Google is concerened it does not matter. I don't have extensions at all. All my URL's are www.domain.com/?pane2=blah_blah. Google spiders my site all the time and I have all my pages listed on Google. I don't know about what Brett says but it makes sense if you want people to link to your internal pages.
|
killroy
msg:83184 | 2:16 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0) |
hmm, I haven'T had any extensions for the html pages in a long while, all URLs in the format: www.domain.com/xyz/abc Isupose link backers will see it as directories, I think it looks more professional. Please note my sites have no files(except images and the like), only a virtual file system. SN
|
sszgo
msg:83185 | 3:25 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0) |
And other thing is is it better to use www.domain.com/xyz/abc
or
www.domain.com/xyz-abc do search engines prefer when file is within root?
when using slashes, it seems that file is within directory, so i suppose files in root should get better results than files within some directory? and also is there difference between www.domain.com/xyz/abc
and
www.domain.com/xyz/abc/ and which one is better to use and why?
first one is one dir closer to root, but maybe in other case, robots prefer accessing directories to single files?
|
|
