Are page extensions important to Google?

[rubenski]

Hi,

The CMS I use, Umbraco, creates friendly URLs out of the box, which is nice. It further allows me to use either .aspx extensions for all pages, or no extension at all.

So I would get

www.example.com/mycategory/mysubcategory/myarticle.aspx

or

www.example.com/mycategory/mysubcategory/myarticle

What do you think is best? Personally I would prefer extensionless URLs for the categories and a plain .html extension for articles. The only reason why is because I used this approach before and Google seems to like it.

What is your take on extensions? Are they important at all? Do you think I should invest time in a different approach than either of the ones offered by my CMS?

[tedster]

No, page extensions are not important for ranking.

[g1smd]

Go for extensionless URLs for at least your dynamic pages. It makes URL rewriting a lot easier.

Categories, mimicing folders, will always be extensionless.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Extensionless urls do indeed make life easier in many instances, use when possible.

I'm not so sure extension is irrelevant however. I've noticed that a .pdf document and in many cases a .kml file gets a pass straight to the top 5 as an 'alternative'. That's not very practical information for most sites since these types of documents require software a visitors computer may not have or require a download because of size.

[tedster]

PDF is a separate file type like MP3 or SWF, rather than one of the choices for an HTML file. Apples and kumquats.

And yes, PDFs offer an often overlooked value for SEO. Even websites who publish a lot of PDF files often ignore some of the basics of SEO and web marketing in their papers.

[SanDiegoFreelance]

An extension of .com or .exe would raise flags because those extensions are used for program files. Even if the site does not download program files.

Google has said extensions don't matter (however some may have different test results) so .aspx should not be a problem however if you want the flexibility to change it at some point in the future extensionless urls provide that flexibility without needing any support on the host.

[Brian0275]

Go with the extensionless url. Even though it is minimal increase in length, do what you can to keep your urls short. It has been proven time and again the shorter urls that are easier to read have a higher CTR

[g1smd]

Go extensionless for pages.

Files (images, stylesheets, scripts) always need an extension.

[rubenski]

Ok, thanks. I'll go for extensionless URLs. I was just wondering if extensionless is a good idea, because Google may not be able to see the difference between a directory (corresponding to a theme in my site) and a page.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

PDF is a separate file type like MP3 or SWF, rather than one of the choices for an HTML file. Apples and kumquats.

I have converted some of my guides into a downloadable pdf file on request. I realize they are different but in terms of rankings a .pdf file gets a fast pass, there just aren't nearly as many of them online.

[lucy24]

Google may not be able to see the difference between a directory (corresponding to a theme in my site) and a page.

Neither can humans until they click on the link. That's all google does-- minus the physical clicking. Your htaccess processes robots right along with everyone else.

[g1smd]

Google may not be able to see the difference between a directory (corresponding to a theme in my site) and a page.

Technically, the URL for a folder, or for the index page in that folder, ends with a trailing slash.

[Kristos]

The Google of a few years back used to rank htm better than asp or php
we have php pages labeled htm using the x-types modfier in the .htaccess file and have not changed them
but today's google pays no attention.