Nope, the *.htm is just the 8.3 filename structure raising it's ugly head from back in the old DOS days.
funny you say that because some SEO companies actually rename their extension to be .seo. So something not so common but something that I have truly seen with my own eyes is "index.seo"
Which shows that there are seo "experts" completely lacking in clue. Only IE will see an html page with an .seo extension*, and that's only because IE gets it wrong by ignoring the server response header. Someday, I'll run into a soi-disant SEO guru who has a clue. In ten years of doing this web stuff, I haven't yet. cheers, gary * unless they've gone completely stupid and reconfigured their server to serve an unregistered MIME type, .seo, as text/html instead of the text/plain that it should.
actually I believe it was a fairly big SEO company... also I don't think it's as difficult to accomplish, just a simple mod_rewrite rule should do the trick...
Got me curious. I've gone to look. Nope. Strange. No mention of this in Google. Not doubting you of course. Just surprised it;s never come up before.
That would be really dumb. Why on earth would you want to tell the search engines you are an SEO expert. To the OP, no it doesn't matter. The SE's look at the content on the page, not the file extension.
HTML is more useful thesedays! however .HTM used it before but new softwares allows you to save on HTML files!
They have reconfigure their server, or IIS just comes misconfigured. Here is the server response header: Response Headers - http://www.netstarter.com.au/Content_Common/pg-web-design-expertise.seo Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:37:51 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 P3P: CP="NOI DSP LAW NID ADM DEV OUR NOR COM" X-Powered-By: ASP.NET X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322 Set-Cookie: ASP.NET_SessionId=ixursqus43232l45vka30q45; path=/ Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Expires: -1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 41013 200 OK Code (markup): Then, here is the response header for a renamed html file. The page is on a local, well configured, development server. Response Headers - http://aretha/~gt/test.seo Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:45:40 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.11 (Debian) PHP/5.2.9-4 with Suhosin-Patch Last-Modified: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:44:13 GMT Etag: "4ec099-4c2-46f8dc8932140" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 1218 Content-Type: text/plain 200 OK Code (markup): The page is quite properly rendered in Firefox as plain text. IE7, in complete disregard for the http specifications, ignores the response header, and since it "looks" like html, it renders as html. This is a known IE bug; maybe IIS has the same stupidity with unknown MIME types. Window dumps of both browsers attached. cheers, gary
htm and html are the same. you could also use any extension that you want using mod_rewrite. I have never heard of 1 extension being more valuable then the other according to the search engines. its the content they care about. unless maybe if you use an .exe as an extension your page might not get indexed as it might be detected as a executable but that is just a theory of mine.
Looks like you know what you're talking about... still, in regards to SEO... It might be beneficial (slightly) since if you search for the name of the company and include "seo" as one of the keywords... when the listing shows up, the extension is actually bolded... so in a way, i guess google does recognise the extension (maybe? yes/no?). At the end of the day, when it comes to SEO, what really works and what doesn't work can be debated for ever and ever... I just admire this company for thinking outside of the box, and I think it does give a certain WOW factor to some users...