Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.117.221

Message Too Old, No Replies

Does the extension of the page matter?

     
11:54 pm on Mar 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 28, 2011
posts: 97
votes: 0


I was thinking which between these to choose:

site/page.htm
site/page.html
site/page
site/page/

What would you prefer? and does google treats them with any differences? (I hope not...)
2:05 am on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Moderator from AU 

WebmasterWorld Administrator anallawalla is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 3, 2003
posts:3701
votes: 3


The extension (.htm, .aspx, etc) does not matter to a search engine. The words in the URL should be relevant to the content of the page as they help a user to recognise this relevance, e.g. blah/widget-user-guide is more intuitive than blah/index.php?page=345
2:50 am on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 30, 2008
posts:2507
votes: 140


I would go for site/page
It is better not having extension, in case you change underlying technology in the future (your URLs can stay the same).

As for last forward slash, the page should not have it as it denotes folder.
7:41 am on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Dec 21, 2010
posts: 27
votes: 0


I second aakk9999.
1:53 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 7, 2003
posts:750
votes: 0


No extension at all is probably best for usability. Its the easiest to remember and type in.

I have seen some evidence that having .html on your urls increases click through rate from the SERPs a small amount. That was measured before Google started showing bread crumbs in place of the URL in SERPs, so even that probably doesn't apply anymore.
2:00 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

joined:Aug 11, 2008
posts:1269
votes: 44


Extensionless is the way to go. As stated, its easier to use, is platform-agnostic, and additionally reduces URL bloat.
2:08 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member topr8 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 19, 2002
posts:3171
votes: 8


i agree that no extension (or trailing slash) is better, because it is neater and shorter.

i totally disagree with the oft mentioned reason that you see repeated here continually:
eg. in case you change underlying technology in the future

any server that can support no extensions will have the ability to parse any file as directed.
for instance i have an old .asp site that i moved to an apache server and converted it to php, i kept all the urls the same 'example.asp' and just instructed the server to parse .asp as php
2:09 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 28, 2011
posts: 97
votes: 0


I think baidu prefers .html and I think in some way google too. But i am not too sure on google
2:10 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Feb 8, 2011
posts: 41
votes: 0


I would go for site/page
[...]
As for last forward slash, the page should not have it as it denotes folder.


Here is the counter-argument (in favor of site/page/):

    http://www.standardzilla.com/2007/07/09/dont-forget-your-trailing-slash/

I do use a trailing slash, even below the top-level. If provided with site/page, I 301 to site/page/.

Note, however, that I think of it more as site/topic/ than site/page/. URIs really indicate resources, not pages and folders.
2:20 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 28, 2011
posts: 97
votes: 0


What about on having:

site/page (without last slash)
if someone calls site/page/ you redirect to /page

+

for other pages related to page

site/page/topic1
site/page/topic2

that would mean for a SE, that you have both a directory and a page named "page"
2:21 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

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

joined:Apr 27, 2001
posts: 12166
votes: 51


That article is incorrect. Sorry to be so blunt but there is incorrect advice given there.

This is a document level URI...

example.com/page

This is a directory level URI...

example.com/directory/

Years ago, the advice was to put everything at a directory level URI. That was before we all started discussing Content Negotiation, Extensionless URIs, etc.

Use /directory/ for directory level and use /document for document level. Don't be misled into the whole trailing slash myth. Go extensionless and serve your documents from their appropriate directory.

/directory/document

There are plenty of proactive options you can take to make sure the above works 100%.

Are Yahoo! and Bing still stripping the trailing slashes from Display URIs? ;)
2:25 pm on Mar 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


A URL ending in a slash is for a folder or the index page of a folder.

URLs for pages do not end with a slash.

URLs for pages can have an extension or can be extensionless.

Images and media files (nearly) always require an extension.

If you use URL rewriting, extensionless URLs are best as you can then detect that any URL without a period needs to be rewritten to fetch the content from your dynamic script. The RegEx pattern matching is very simple.

This also completely avoids those inefficient -f and -d server filesystem "exists" checks that slow so many dynamic sites down.

URLs ending in .html will not be rewritten and the server will fetch the content from the matching static .html file. Extensionless URLs get rewritten to the dynamic script.

Simples! See also: [webmasterworld.com...]