Forum Moderators: open
Michael
Our sites with php extensions are going just as well as sites with htm extensions.
Maybe what you heard was to avoid long dynamic urls which are often used by php as it is a scripting language like cgi which *can* use dynamic urls.
Ive heard this comment made on a disadvantage from Google for php extensions a few times but have yet to see any real evidence for it.
As far as htm or html i wouldnt worry, except its quicker to type htm than html!
[edited by: chiyo at 7:23 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2003]
A mess - got started of with htm and changed half way thtough. I cannot se any problems with my htm - as I said, I'm very pleased at the time....
www.mysite.dom/somepath/subpath/
instead of
www.mysite.dom/somepath/subpath/index.html
I'm not sure if index.htm is supoorted in this way too.
Another point is that many people (me too) don't like .htm at all. It doesn't look professional. It looks like you have only Windows 3.1(1) as production environment.
Another point is that many people (me too) don't like .htm at all. It doesn't look professional. It looks like you have only Windows 3.1(1) as production environment.
You're certainly entitled to your prejudices (and to your highly questionable assumption about what an .htm extension means), but the fact remains that virtually nobody cares whether a filename ends in .html or .htm. And in answer to the original poster's question, there's no evidence that Google cares, either. Google is in the business of making judgments about relevancy of content, not about file extensions.
weteo, it is the way that your server is set up that defines what the name of the default file is.
It doesn't look professional.
Huh? I don't think professionalism has anything to do with extensions. I kinda doubt that surfers are judging my sites on that basis.
BTW, I also use .shtm and .shtml which also seems to work just fine with Google.
No, I use rewrite, my CMS just emulates standard web file systems. There's no information visible to Google given on my server that /index.html is Directory Index
I think they must have it (index.html) in their configs and algos as favourite option.
Mostly my pages on my websites are linked as "/somedir/index.html" but they are always in SERPs as "www.mydomain.dom/somedir/"
I can't remember where I heard that .html was preferred over .php. And it's quite possibly because of the query strings usually associated with .php files. So I apologize if I spread any falsehoods.
Nonetheless, this is quite the interesting debate.
Michael
people used htm in the past because you were only allowed 3 letter extentions
Yep my oldest website is still in HTM simply because that is what people have linked to so it would be too big a pain to change. HTML sounds more up to date but that's life.
Anne
I think it has.
Look, there are 1000's of web scripting languages and CMS systems, and anytime you transfer or rebuild your site with new system, you loose all your links and SE positions.
Professional webmaster plans architecture of website in the way that no existing document address (URI) will be changed in the future. There's only one extension, which is used since web started and will be used forewer - it's ".html"
With rewrite method you can use any scripting language but your documents always can be .html
web page is about usability, do you know that some versions of Internet Explorer don't save page as html if it's not named .htm or .html?
What about compatibility problems if you want to share your web project for example on CDs?
This forum is about Google and Google uses .html
(e.g. [google.com...]
HTML sounds more up to date but that's life.
This is odd. Why is html more up to date? I don't get it. Depending on the site, I have used both extensions. Never noticed any repercussions, positive or negative. I don't think it matters even a little bit, and probably is an exercise in irrelevance to discuss.
Only in regard to search engine ranking, which is why I moved the thread to the HTML forum :)
So what about weteo's points about compatability? Anything in it?
Like, umm...sure, if you say so. I say .htm looks better. Why use the longer version when the shorter works as well? All I know is that my sites get quite a bit of traffic, and I've yet to have a user criticize the fact all my extensions are .htm. Like, who cares?
If there is, it has nothing to do with *search engines*. I'm not planning on sharing my work with others who for some odd reason can't handle a .htm file.
right, but there's much more to building and promoting a site than search engines. Really, there is :)
It does not matter if you use htm, html, blah, or whatever - as long as it feeds the browser with HTML. Search engines do not care. Users do not care.
Surely, whether you use htm or html is a personal thing. It won't cause any compatibility issues.
Besides, about htm suggesting that one uses Win 3.1x .. What's wrong with Windows 3.1? ;)
10 links / per page
10 000 pageviews / per day
now with using .htm instead of .html you would save around what? 35-36 MB of bandwidth every year.
could be something to consider for heavy traffic sites, but more of a "what mood i'm in" for me...
mavherick
huh? Wrong i think.
As far as i remember .html only came into vogue a long time after htm. I suspect html became popular when a certain WYSIWIG editor started using it as default!
I still wonder why people use it so we use htms throughout as i never seen an advantage in changing, (and losing all those links) Why use a 4 letter word when a 3 letter word would do? an when you are trying to reduce your code weight as much as possible.
As far as html looking more professional, the better the site the more the casual, normal browser would not even know as they would be less likely to look at the url!
PS Im a Win 3.1 person in nature and proud of it!
