What file format with extension is best suited by search engines?
8:21 am on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)
If you're using a CMS and internal rewrites, the code changes for that are also very easy.
I agree. But why put extra efforts if just avoiding the extension serves the purpose?
8:38 am on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)
I took a poll from non SEOs regarding this. Since SEOs will always have their own biased thinking about URLs.
example.com/PageName scored high.
Do users' popularity/trend count into high rankings? I guess "yes"... Since that is what search engines are supposed to measure.
9:41 am on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)
Again... with regards to the poll. There might be a difference between what one subconsciously thinks is a good URL format with what one consciously thinks is good. I guess what one subconsciously thinks matters more... and that data a poll possibly cannot emulate and extract.
[edited by: ganeshjacharya at 10:36 am (utc) on Nov 25, 2012]
9:57 am on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)
I appreciate your efforts in this ganeshjacharya. I used to use .html but then studied it and switched to .htm. I see many websites dropping all extensions on their webpages.
I checked the ny times and this part of one article's URL:
If I remember right, they use Drupal. Also, I noticed the dashes. They also sorted by date: /2012/11/25/world/white-house...
I think it looks cleaner without an extension too (like Wikipedia).