shtml affects on serps

Is there any more evidence that it is bad or good?

[AWildman]

I'm building a new site and was considering using ssi. I asked the admin to fix the config on our web servers to server up ssi in html docs instead of shtml docs siting that I'd read in various places that it has a negative impact on search engine results. Well, as I looked to find my sources, I saw that the info was rather out of date. So, I'll ask it again, does shtml have any affect on serp?
Anyone do any testing recently?

[Fruit and Veg]

I haven't done any testing to compare the two, but I mainly use .shtml pages on my website and have absolutely no difficulties getting them listed or ranking well.

I'd recommend SSI to my dear old grandma.

[bakedjake]

So, I'll ask it again, does shtml have any affect on serp?

According to Google, no.

[webmasterworld.com...]

I would tend to agree. I have no evidence at this point in time that .shtml file extensions have a negative impact on search engine rankings. Some believe that it's always better to have a .htm or .html extension, but I haven't seen any verifiable tests proving this.

[AWildman]

Thanks for the fast responses. I guess I'm still iffy about them cause I don't see a bunch of them listed in results for the searches that I do. Of course, I haven't done any scientific study on it either. I'd seen some older posts in here where some seemed to be wary of shtml pages.

[AWildman]

Does anyone have any bad experience with shtml pages tanking in the serps?

[Fruit and Veg]

Tanking? Does that mean sinking?

I would give you an example to help ease your mind but I can't give away my top results! ;) Anyway, do a search in Google for .shtml - 50 million people can't be wrong.

[AWildman]

Yup. It means sinking.
Thanks for the response.

[AWildman]

I'm very surprised to not hear a single bad thing about the shtml extension in regards to serps. Not even from a visitor usability standpoint.

[Visit Thailand]

I was as worried as you are about moving to .shtml or SSI but have had not bad results our SERPS have remained in the same pos.

One thing to remember is that DMOZ will not respect a 301 from a .htm to a .shtml even though the content is identical.

[AWildman]

Thanks so much for the reassurance. I'm just skittish about this cause this site is for a new "division" if it can be called that to our company. I don't want it to bomb.
I guess I'll just leap in and learn to love my shtml self! :)

[chadmg]

I'm not 100% on this since I use asp, but can't you just give the shtml files an html extension? I've heard it doesn't make a difference. Well, I guess it would slow down your server if you have some non-shtml html pages. But you can always differentiate with htm and html if it bothers you. Just a suggestion if you're worried about using shtml.

[AWildman]

Well, that's just it. The sysadmin doesn't want to allow ssi in html docs for some security reason. I'm sure there's some valid security reason, but I don't know what. Perhaps someone could shed some light on that.

[bakedjake]

for some security reason

If he really meant "security", he's misguided.

If he meant "performance", then that's understandable. If you turned on SSI for all .html extensions, every page would have to be run through the parser.

AVWildman, why don't you run a few tests and put up some shtml. With Google indexing almost every day, you'll be able to see your results fairly immediately. I think it's the only way you'll be able to see for yourself what is working and what is not. :)

[AWildman]

I may just do that. I wanted to create a site map anyhow, I'll just turn it into an shtml experiment while I'm at it.

Thanks a bunch everyone!