All pages on a website are named pageone.htm, pagetwo.htm, pagethree.htm etc. but so that they look tidier on Googles pages, references to these pages on a website are like pageone, pagetwo, pagethree etc, with the relevant redirecting for this to auto happen.
The question is this - is the correct way, Google/Bing wise - SEO wise please?
Dez.
I hope you donât mean that literally. about.htm, contact.htm, services.htm etc. would be much better and convey more meaning to humans (most importantly) and search engines.
As far as removing or retaining the file extension, I donât think search engines care either way.
Sorry, not literally. Theyâre called contact.htm, about.htm, etc.
Anyone know for sure?
This is Googleâs advice on URLs, which doesnât mention this issue at all - hence my assumption that itâs not a consideration.
I suppose it would come under the umbrella of âKeeping a simple URL structureâ, though since Googleâs primary concern is the relevancy of the content, I donât believe it will have any huge impact.
But I think on the whole, hiding extensions is better. One way it can help is to future-proof the site. If you were to change from static html to dynamic server-side processed pages, the pages will change from about.html to about.asp or about.php.
By removing the extension from the indexed pages you wonât need to set up redirects and have to wait for Google to re-index your pages under their new names (which can cause a temporary âblipâ) and any existing back links with remain current.
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.