On internal links should I use the whole link address or just the file? Does it really make a difference?
Example <a href="sitemap.htm"> or <a href="http://www.mydomain.com/sitemap.htm">
BeeDeeDubbleU
10:57 pm on Jan 3, 2007 (gmt 0)
In my experience it is beneficial to use the full URL.
piatkow
8:07 pm on Jan 6, 2007 (gmt 0)
The important thing is to be consistent. If you mix the various formats then you will dilute your search engine rankings.
Remember Google is not clever enough to know that www.mysite.com and www.myste.com/index.html are the same page.
adamnichols45
12:38 pm on Jan 15, 2007 (gmt 0)
piatkow
I seriously doubt that G does not know the difference between www.abc.com and www.abc.com/index.html
piatkow
4:55 pm on Jan 15, 2007 (gmt 0)
Read the threads about duplicate content penalties in the google forums.
alphabeta
5:37 pm on Jan 18, 2007 (gmt 0)
I find it works well to place the tag <base href="http://www.yourwebsite.com"> in the <head></head> section of the web page, then you don't have as much duplicate content on each page and you'll have less of a chance to mispell your own domain name while editing.
wolfadeus
8:28 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)
BDW, are you serious? It never occurred to me that I could use the entire url for internal linking...somewhat alarming...
Is that only if you show the link-text as anchor? In that case I could understand a difference.
W.
BeeDeeDubbleU
10:19 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)
For the last couple of years I have used only full URLs and IMHO it could help. This is based only on intuition as opposed to scientific proof. ;)
wolfadeus
7:52 am on Jan 30, 2007 (gmt 0)
I am starting to see a reason why I still need a reguarl job to pay my rent ;)
yellowbeetle
7:33 pm on Jan 30, 2007 (gmt 0)
Question for y'all - if you use full urls for every link on every page, how do you test prior to going live with new content?