Do file extensions matter?

Using .php, .asp, as opposed to .html

[akognet]

I just came across a Google file extension density table from a 2000 research project here [searchengineworld.com].

I wonder if this density still stands? Or close to it anyway? (For those who don't want to follow the link, it shows that probably around 94% of URLs found in Google are either root URLs, or extension .htm/.html, compared to 1.43% .asp, and 0.03% .php).

I'm pretty sure the .asp/.php density has increased at least somewhat in the 3 years since this project happened, but are those extensions still hurting GoogleBot's feelings? I know dynamic pages are becoming mainstream more and more, but I also feel that G looks at them with at least a somewhat nervous, doubtful eye..

Would .htmming calm the nerves?

[GoogleGuy]

Nah, those extensions don't hurt Googlebot's feelings. :) It doesn't matter if a page ends in .htm, .html, .shtml, .php, .asp, .cgi, or anything else. We treat them the same.

[akognet]

The main tripper for me was the near-absence of .php extensions 3 years ago, when PHP (be it version 3) was at least moderately popular.

The indifference is good to know.

[piskie]

GoogleGuy - Thanks for that promptly supplied information.
Very useful to know.

Incidentaly, will you be at the London PubConference?

[stuijts]

What about PDF and DOC?
At one optimisation-project, which includes a lot of those files, those seem to be ranked much better than other pages of the website...

reg,
Birthe