Lame_Wolf - 7:12 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)
From a pure SEO standpoint "pagename" would be best
I have URL's that are like...
and they all rank #1
You cannot get better than #1, so how is one better than the other?
Minimal number of characters used in conveying the exact keyword(s) between the four options provided for pagename.
How is that better from an SEO standpoint?
To me, SEO is about reaching #1. If I have reached that with either...
...then i've done my job.
I try to not make any URL too long. I've made that mistake before and can cause all sorts of problems.
I still prefer .html extensions on pages I am unlikely to need to update and that don't have dynamic content. A quick php_copy gives me a static .html copy that my server gives precedence to automatically without any redirecting in htaccess, it doesn't get much easier (or faster) than that.
I use .html too. I don't know why, but I have never liked .htm
It's all preference, search engines understand them all just fine and there are better places to make gains with your SEO efforts.
At the same time, you have to think of your audience.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be sending out a newsletter aimed at children with a URL of www.example.com/penisland.html or www.example.com/penisland