What File format with extension is best for SEO?

[ganeshjacharya]

What file format with extension is best suited by search engines?

• page_name.html
  
• pagename.html
  
• page_name
  
• pagename
  

[rowtc2]

I use article-title.html
"-" means Google will see separate words, if you use "_" will see one word.

[seoskunk]

• pagename
  

[g1smd]

Always avoid underscores and spaces in URLs. Hyphens are fine.

You do not need an extension on the end of the URL for a page.

The URL for a folder or for the index page in a folder should end with a trailing slash.

[Lame_Wolf]

pagename

penisland and expertsexchange spring to mind.

BTW Google handles underscores far better than they used to.

[seoskunk]

@ Lame_Wolf well pagename is the best of the choices given IMHO

[Lame_Wolf]

seoskunk, anyone is entitled to an opinion, but you must take into consideration that some words are not suited to be joined together.

[seoskunk]

Of course Lame_Wolf , but as google is now able to determine the keyword even in joined up names and has done for some time, I don't see this as an issue.

[Lame_Wolf]

I wouldn't be so sure.

[seoskunk]

"sure" its goog my friend nothing is sure accept money

[Lame_Wolf]

"sure" its goog my friend nothing is sure accept money

And what is to say that a combination of words prevent adverts from being shown. No adverts, no money.

Plus, it could offend someone who is reading the URL wrongly.

[edited by: Lame_Wolf at 11:00 pm (utc) on Nov 23, 2012]

[incrediBILL]

I used some underscores many moons ago before I knew better and the pages ranked tops so who knows. However, all the later pages using hyphens also ranked just as well. I've ranked a bazillion .html pages just fine, the extension doesn't really mean squat but I certainly wouldn't do any other extension like .php or something that divulges the underlying site technology, like the "x-powered-by" in the header, just as a matter of security .

[Lame_Wolf]

I used some underscores many moons ago before I knew better and the pages ranked tops so who knows.

Same here and they still rank. Now I know better, I use lowercase and hyphens.

[seoskunk]

I used some underscores many moons ago

me too and the pages ranked very well....... still do

[edited by: seoskunk at 11:12 pm (utc) on Nov 23, 2012]

[incrediBILL]

I use lowercase

I still use mixed case just to mess with the really stupid Windows based kiddy script scrapers that think all URLs are case insensitive. They leave a trail of 404s that's easy to follow like breadcrumbs.

[seoskunk]

that think all URLs are case insensitive

Shoot me down in flames but I believe the original spec was that urls should be case insensitive by Tim Berners Lee

[Dan01]

I use .htm

Several years ago I looked into it and from what I read, the older operating systems could only handle three-letter extensions. So at that time, I decided to stick to .htm. Does it matter? I don't think so, but why change?

[g1smd]

I believe the original spec

hostname is case insensitive. folders and files are case sensitive on Linux systems.

Windows...we won't go there.

older operating systems could only handle three-letter extensions

::cough:: Windows.

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.

[seoskunk]

hostname is case insensitive. folders and files are case sensitive on Linux systems.

Correct, but if you read the spirit of the original directive, we all know Tim Berners Lee is a accessibility advocate, lowercase urls make sense for accessibility. Mixed case urls pushes domain protection vs domain function too far.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

From a pure SEO standpoint "pagename" would be best, it's all the information you need to share though none of the examples would likely be considered bad by any major search engine.

From a useability point of view I prefer "pagename.html" simply because, if I choose to, I can create a static copy of my php pages and upload them to the server to completely get rid of the CMS or php script. There is nothing faster than full static pages(no database, no processing etc) and those work well with the old .html extension (unless you like mucking around with htaccess redirects and such).

I use both, it depends on the site.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 12:09 am (utc) on Nov 24, 2012]

[Lame_Wolf]

From a pure SEO standpoint "pagename" would be best

Define best.
I have URL's that are like...

SometimesLikeThis.html
or-sometimes-like-this.htmnl
and_some_like_this.html

and they all rank #1
You cannot get better than #1, so how is one better than the other?

it's all the information you need to share though none of the examples would likely be considered bad by any major search engine.

They were purely examples of innocent words when joined together can spell something different.
And like I said, it could offend someone somewhere. I know, i've had the pleasure of dealing with them.

[Dan01]

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.

I agree, you don't need anything. I use a .jpg and .gif for images and .htm for webpages.

[serpsup]

fwiw - I use both underscores and hyphens in most of my urls and they rank just fine. That may sound odd - but I use underscores to separate words, and append a common hyphenated word to the end of many of the urls... so this lead me down the road of both :)

If I had it to do over I'd probably go 100% hyphens though based on this thread. I think underscores don't hurt you as much as some in this thread have said. I have plenty of top 1-3 rankings with underscores and hyphens - and Google and Binghoo can tell the words apart separated by the underscores.

[phranque]

given that the default style for anchor text is underlined, underscores in URLs are a poor usabillity practice.

i.e., is that an underscore or an underlined space character?

[ganeshjacharya]

and the CamelCase

• PageName.html
  
• PageName

[incrediBILL]

given that the default style for anchor text is underlined, underscores in URLs are a poor usabillity practice.

i.e., is that an underscore or an underlined space character?

Usability? How so?

People either click it, bookmark it or select and copy it, neither action requires knowing if it's an underscore or a space.

[ganeshjacharya]

People either click it, bookmark it or select and copy it, neither action requires knowing if it's an underscore or a space.

People would also need to use voice to cite URLs. Suppose I am talking to someone on phone and that person is over a Laptop. How difficult would it be to cite example.com/This_Page_Name_is_What_you_need_to_Open

I deliberately added "T", "P", "W", "O" in capital and other characters in small. In such situations example.com/123 like URLs would be best suited.

[lucy24]

Lowlines _ count as \w for RegEx purposes.
Hyphens - don't, and cause further inconvenience in groups.

If it doesn't fit neatly into a Regular Expression, sooner or later I will have to do something by hand.

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.

I agree, you don't need anything. I use ... .htm for webpages.

Uhm...?

I certainly wouldn't do any other extension like .php or something that divulges the underlying site technology

Then again you can pack your html pages with php includes that are coded to look so pretty,* nobody will ever suspect ;)


* I'll do a lot to help people on satellite connections, but I absolutely draw the line at minifying. It makes my skin crawl just looking at the result, and to heck with that 15% savings.

[Dan01]

Uhm...?

It doesn't cost any extra to have an htm at the end and it was a convention I have used since 2000. I don't think NOT having an htm will affect the rank.

As per underscores and hyphens - I use underscores. I have no evidence, but years ago I looked into it and read that the underscore was seen as a space by the SEs. So I still use underscore, never a space and only a hyphen now and then. I now have some WP sites that use hyphens only.

[edited by: Dan01 at 4:23 am (utc) on Nov 24, 2012]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Define best.

Minimal number of characters used in conveying the exact keyword(s) between the four options provided for pagename. I'd suggest using a hyphen between words but that wasn't one of the four options.

icouldrankthisnumberonetoo_butwhywouldIwantto.htm ?

I still prefer .html extensions on pages I am unlikely to need to update and that don't have dynamic content. A quick php_copy gives me a static .html copy that my server gives precedence to automatically without any redirecting in htaccess, it doesn't get much easier (or faster) than that.

It's all preference, search engines understand them all just fine and there are better places to make gains with your SEO efforts.