Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.25.166

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

shtml vs html and htm

     
5:27 am on Jun 7, 2001 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 10, 2000
posts:2151
votes: 0


Anybody know the latest on shtml vs html et al? I don't think we've had this discussion for awhile and I was wondering if anyone else has noticed a change in the amount of shtml pages showing up and how well (or not) they are ranking.
5:43 am on June 7, 2001 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 26, 2000
posts:2176
votes: 0



I just had a discussion this morning with a client who doesn't want to make the necessary modifications to allow me to parse .html files for SSI. I always tell them it's better for positioning to use .html, but the truth is I just don't like the fact that .shtml makes it obvious that you're messing with stuff before you deliver the page to the browser. (especially if there is cloaking involved).

It has always seemed quite possible to me that .shtml would be treated as more of a suspect than other extensions, but I've never really taken the time to do any definitive testing.

>>I was wondering if anyone else has noticed a change in the amount of shtml pages showing up

I haven't noticed any changes, but I'm curious what type of change you have seen. More or less?

5:49 am on June 7, 2001 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 10, 2000
posts:2151
votes: 0


I'm not trying to avoid the question but the 'else' is a typo. Just should have been 'anyone' ;)

I haven't really noticed much at all. I seem to have come across a few more dynamic extensions (shtml, cgi etc) but not enough that I'm willing to go with it yet. Gonna stick with .html for the time being.

6:13 am on June 7, 2001 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 7, 2000
posts:267
votes: 0


AltaVista is being very slow in indexing my site with .shtml extension, but is good when it comes to .html and .htm

Also, I have noticed the difference in ranking. Most (almost all) good ranked web site for competitive keywords are with .html or .htm extensions.

2:26 pm on June 7, 2001 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rcjordan is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 22, 2000
posts:9138
votes: 0


Ditto what Vishal said. On Google, the highest I've been able to get .shtml (index.shtml, btw) is #2 on a fairly competitive term (28,000 pages returned). The highest non-index.shtml has been #8.

MatB

12:23 pm on June 22, 2001 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


Can't say I have ever noticed a problem. Most of the sites that I manage are .shtml and I have got #1 listings in quite a few search engines with various .shtml pages from these sites.
7:47 pm on July 14, 2001 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38047
votes: 11


I do agree they seem more "se friendly" today than they did a couple years ago, but like WG, I just don't trust them.
7:21 pm on July 22, 2001 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 19, 2001
posts:183
votes: 0


I have recently launched a site that is .shtml, it now holds #1 for 200,000 returned search.

BTW its index.shtml and does not use any cloaking its just so I can use SSI for menus and footers etc

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members