Do engines like /content or /content.html ?

Will most engines prefer "abc.com/content" or "abc.com/content.html?"

[Internet Marketing M]

I can put whatever I want at the end of a url, .html, .htm, .asp, .webmasterworldisamazing, or nothing at all.
Right all my pages are set to domain.com/_content. (They used to be "index.asp?page=", we replaced all that with "_") Will engines prefer that I suffix all these pages which look like directories now with a .html, .htm, .asp, or leave them look like directories?

I get the feeling google may reward the pages if they are left looking like directories, but other engines may not crawl the pages at all.

Summary.
1. Leave nothing at end of url, or put .html?

2. Do you think "-" would have better than "_"? I know anything is better than "index.asp?page="

Thanks everyone.

[Brett_Tabke]

As long as the content type returned in the header is a proper text/html, you should be ok. I wouldn't risk it though, and would use the full .htm or .html extension. An ending directory slash would suffice too.

[meannate]

I believe that files in the root directory will yield better results, it's not going to make or break you, but it's a good idea to keep your important pages as close to the root as possible. A while back they were debating whether or not put keyphrases in directories & and the filenames, but I think it's probably moot at this point.

I would go with www.site.com/content.html

[Slade]

The only justifyable reason I've seen given for keeping your pages close to root, is shorter URLs.

The distance in PR from / to /this/other/page.html, is only as far as it takes the spider to find the link. If you link to it right from the main page, then it'll be weighted more(generally) than if you only link to it from a page in /this/other/index.html.