Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.159.50.111

Forum Moderators: mademetop

Message Too Old, No Replies

.htm vs .html

     
3:45 am on Jun 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 29, 2003
posts:398
votes: 0


Silly simple question. My unleet searching skills came up with nothing.

In your proffessional opinions, does .html fair worse then .htm for the SERPs?

I'm just really old fashioned and insistant on .html with my stubborn ways. Thanks.

4:34 am on June 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:Mar 31, 2002
posts:25430
votes: 0


.htm is a direct result of the old 8+3 character file naming restriction of MS DOS and some older operating systems. Search engines don't care whether you use .htm or .html, or even .php, so take your pick.

Jim

8:59 pm on June 2, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 21, 2003
posts:203
votes: 4


I've previously used .fred

Simply because I was bored and it allowed me to do a simple search for


inurl:".fred"

to find out what pages were indexed. The added value that I didn't think of at the time was that it caused some viral interest in the page naming convention.

2:27 am on June 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 6, 2004
posts:56
votes: 0


there is a small body of anecdotal evidence that suggests google prefers the .htm extension, but I've seen no real evidence of this. .txt files seem to do really well, heh, php all the way for me baby!

I imagine, so long as the spider can parse the text data it GETs, it can be indexed. I've seen some wacky extensions do very well.

;o)
(or