Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.62.251

Forum Moderators: mademetop

Message Too Old, No Replies

Do you include the http://www. in your links?

     

adamnichols45

8:42 pm on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



From a search engine perspective do you use.

<a href="http://www.widget.com/page2.html">widget</a>

OR

<a href="page2.html">widget</a>

pageoneresults

8:52 pm on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



You are referring to absolute vs. relative links.

I use absolute 95% of the time...

http://www.example.com/sub/

Since I trim out fat in other areas, I can afford the additional weight (number of domain characters) added for an absolute URI structure.

adamnichols45

9:20 pm on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The reason I generally dont is that when viewing locally which I do alot the links of course link of elsewhere.

That could be sorted easily just bad habbits.

PowerUp

3:18 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



This is interesting. Will the experts please give us your thoughts.

I'm thinking... if I have 2000 pages of content, will it make a difference to my homepage pagerank if i link my 2000 pages to my homepage using
1. <a href="http://www.widget.com>
2. <a href="http://www.widget.com/index.html>
3. <a href="index.html>

Reason I'm asking is because I've come across some websites with PR4 and above. These pages has only backlinks from their own content pages. No backlinks from other domains.

caveman

5:02 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0)

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



The reason I generally dont is that when viewing locally which I do alot the links of course link of elsewhere.

Best practice is to use the full URI, so there is no chance of the SE's getting it wrong. If your site structure is clean and easy and well maintained and someone is always paying attention to links being properly implemented, then it probably won't matter much.

Personally, I've moved toward full URI's to take uncertainty out of the equation.

Turbulence

2:17 pm on Apr 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



Best practice is to use the full URI,

so there is no chance of the SE's getting it wrong. If your site structure is clean and easy and well maintained and someone is always paying attention to links being properly implemented, then it probably won't matter much.

Personally, I've moved toward full URI's to take uncertainty out of the equation.

Definitely - to be absolutely sure you don't get the search engines confused that much, try to use only the full URLs - it helps much. This have been my practice for quite a long time now and I've never had a flaw so far.

Good luck,

Turbulence

kevinpate

2:49 pm on Apr 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I'm probably 99%+ relative and < 1% absolute.
Generally the two sites float around upper half
of page 1 in G and Y, middle 1/3 on M.

These are info sites for a nfp, and not pay the bill sites, but all the same, in light of where they float on pg 1 when I'm not shooting myself in the foot like I used to do when I belonged to the 'wonder whut'll happen if I do X" club, I'm not overly inclined to switch things around these days.

 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month