Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.225.22.139

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & andy langton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Are page extensions important to Google?

     
10:54 pm on Sep 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 28, 2003
posts:274
votes: 0


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?
12:30 pm on Sept 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


No, page extensions are not important for ranking.
1:05 pm on Sept 12, 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


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

Categories, mimicing folders, will always be extensionless.
4:15 pm on Sept 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sgt_kickaxe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 14, 2010
posts:3169
votes: 0


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.
5:42 pm on Sept 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

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

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


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.
7:00 pm on Sept 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Feb 1, 2011
posts: 36
votes: 0


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.
9:13 pm on Sept 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

New User

5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 29, 2011
posts:12
votes: 0


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
10:38 pm on Sept 12, 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


Go extensionless for pages.

Files (images, stylesheets, scripts) always need an extension.
1:08 am on Sept 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 28, 2003
posts:274
votes: 0


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.
4:20 am on Sept 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member sgt_kickaxe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 14, 2010
posts:3169
votes: 0


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.
6:46 am on Sept 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lucy24 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 9, 2011
posts:13210
votes: 347


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.
8:04 am on Sept 13, 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


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.
11:24 pm on Sept 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 7, 2004
posts: 141
votes: 0


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.