Forum Moderators: phranque
[example.com...]
it is now:
[example.com...]
This not only provides more useful keywords to a search engine, but search engines seem to index/rank static links more generously than dynamic. That has been my experience. Since I have performed the switch search engine traffic has more than doubled, and the number of indexed pages in the big three google-yahoo-msn has risen considerably (in the 2 months since I switched).
The question I'm curious about is this: does a URL with a filename.html ending hold more sway with search engines than a URL with only a directory ending?
For instance, would it give any extra weight (besides adding the additional keyword weight) to a webpage to switch from:
[example.com...]
into
[example.com...]
? Anybody have experience with this?
I have seen non-query string pages rank higher, because many SE's still either cannot or choose not to read information after the ?. I have seen more query strings in listed URL's lately though, so maybe things are changing.
As for your original question I have not noticed any difference personally between a 'directory' a page with type indicated 'page.html' or a page with no type 'page'. You might receive a better answer in a discussion that is more greared to SEO than I can give though.
Justin
But with regard to the extension vs. directory, do you think it would be better to use:
[example.com...]
OR
[example.com...]
OR
it would make no difference either way. Still curious on opinions of that particular point.