site structure (folders or html-files)?

[Makaveli2007]

Hi,

I have a question. I've been thinking quite a bit about using a CMS, but because of certain things, I prefer to really just get started now and then think about whether I want to switch to one or not, again in three months (after the semester). I've thought about this quite a lot, so Im sure this is how I'm going to do it.

However, I just remembered something somebody told me a couple of months ago. That I should organize my files into folders and then link to www website com/folder1 instead of www website com/file.html or www website com/folder1/file.html.

He said I should do it this way, because then I wont run into any search engine issues if I want to change from .html to .php or .asp or whatever at some time in the future.

My pages are all .shtml, now (because Im using SSI).

Is it a good idea to create a folder (and possibly a sub-folder) for every page I have so I can link to the folder or subfolder instead of linking to a .html or .shtml file or something?

I assume in my case, because I'm considering switching to a CMS later on, this might be very important? Or can I use .shtml files with a CMS, too (so I dont lose any links).

Is this a good idea or plain unnecessary?

I assume the theory behind it is that people will link to what they see in the browser. So they'll see www website com/folder1/ and thus link to it that way instead of adding index.html or index.shtml to the path they see. Does it really work like that?

Also: Does it matter whether I link to www website com/folder1 or www website com/folder1/ ?
Maybe I can eliminate/block the choice Im not using so nobody's gonna link to it (unless they want a broken link)?

THANKS!

PS: My site only has 17 pages (and I dont think Ill add any new ones, so its not a ton of work and Ive done it for 2 categories already just to test it)

[phoenix06007]

If you stick to a long-term plan of building great content and sourcing some great inbound links, all things being equal, it won’t make much difference whether you have a sub domain or a folder structure.

If you go with a folder structure, be sure to build up substantial content and have useful and important inbound links back to your site. If you have loads of content and good branding reasons for treating each section as a separate entity, then sub domains may be the best way to go. However, there is a lot more work involved if and when you decide to add a new section — it’s not as simple as adding another folder.

[Makaveli2007]

thanks for the input. I didnt really wonder "subdomain vs. folders"...but "place all 17 shtml documents in the root vs. use a folder for the main categories vs. use a single folder for every shtml page (and then rename every shtml page to index.shtml)". I went with the latter (and will stick with this for now unless somebody tells me it is horribly wrong :-))

[caveman]

Makaveli2007, yes absolutely, given a choice, go with extensionless URI's.

The great advantage is that you will never need to redirect pages in future if/when you change platforms. I had to do that for a few of my old sites. Never again. Lost massive amounts of short term traffic (months worth).

[Makaveli2007]

By extensionsless URI's (URLs?), you mean that I sort of have 2 choices:

a) I place them into a folder (each html page) and call the page index.html

or

b) I do a URL-rewrite (which I dont understand anything about)

..so given that I dont know anything about b) and that I've already done a) (and only have 17 pages...wont be many more because of the nature of the site)...it's probably fine?

I guess some people might think that creating a folder if no folder is needed (pseudo-folders) is a bad thing, but it doesn't really have any disadvantage, right? or does it?

thanks!

[caveman]

The way you created extensionless URI's [webmasterworld.com] is fine.

What you need to do also is:

301 old URI's to the new ones if the old ones enjoy external link equity

ensure that all non-canonical versions of URI's resolve to the canonical versions (e.g., if users type in www.example.com/some-directory -- without the trailing slash -- you want it to resolve to www.example.com/some-directory/ )

internally link to all of your new pages using your new canonical form (don't use the extensions in internal linking, use www.example.com/some-directory/ )

And while you're at it, make sure your site is using either www or non-www for all URI's and that the non-canonical versions are resolving to the canonical versions. ;-)