mkaing SEO Url .html vs. no-html

Hello, I was wondering, which urs is more search engine friendly:
/id/artice/
/id/artice.html
/id-artice.html
/id-article/
Or are all of them equaly friendly?

 

Does not matter whether you include a file extensions or not.

 

It's not important to have an extension, but what really matters in SEO is that your directories/file names should be used with keywords.

 

Be sure to use keywords in your file names. Also below are examples of search engine friendly URLs.

http://www.example.com/my-lawn-service.html

Or . . .

http://example.com/we-sell-televisions.htm

 

The closer you are to the root/domain, the better. /id-article.html is better than id/article.html. And, yes it is definitely better to use keywords.

 

Thanks, for the answers. I will go with /id-artice-name/. Next question, what is recommended length of "article-name"? or max?

 

All the ones you mentioned are search engine friendly.

 

The url does not make a page search engine friendly, if there is
such a term. If you mean does it help in SERPS? I don't see how.

Websites are ranked, not urls. It is what you do to the page that
will be search engine friendly. If the paged is linked off of your main
page and is readily indexed, it will be found.

If you mean does it look better in the SERPS? Well, that would be
a different story as well. It might, as google would highlight those
keywords. But as you know, plenty of sites are found without any
keywords in the domain or url.

I always feel people spend too much time on stuff like this instead
of concentrating on stuff that could really make a difference.

I have one old-fashioned blog that uses ?p=123 or other such
number and I still get some of those posts pretty high. It's what's
in the post that matters.

I am aware that there is a whole league of people who swear you
must put keywords somewhere in your url. Doing real-time searches,
I just don't see it as a must.

Stephen C

 

Amen.

IF there is a keyword in the url, it does get grabbed, and you'll see it in bold. However, plenty of sites still have numerical tokens and this does not stop google. Like index.php?p=shopfilter&s_2=34&arikel=23&frobnitz=22

To tell the truth, do what makes the most sense to people. Pretty urls are much more benefit to humans.

Here's a url

pretty long, still easy to remember, google shows it near the top of the search page if you're looking for those terms (however his URL is the same as his h1, and is the title of the article).

 

Let`s see. If you have a category you should use www.site.com/category-name/ .

And if you have an article on this category you should use .html : www.site.com/category-name/article-name.html

That`s the best way I think.

 

Depends - it loads a little bit the server too. Not very recommended on large sites unless you have a powerful dedicated server.

 

as long as there is no session-ids or such stuff in the urls its all good.

ofcourse having the keywords in the url is very good

google first matches the urls words before it matches the contents words

 

Or are all of them equaly friendly? as far as im aware.

Its interesting that of all of my sites, the only one that i dont have sef urls on (web hosting to blame) is a site that does well, even the content that i upload to it (mostly images) usually dont have descriptive names, yet that site is fine.

Its got messy looking urls of a gallery and also of a connected forum.

 

Keep it going, good question and interesting replies

 

I like this format most:
/id/artice.html

.html can be .php or whatever. I just don't like the idea of using directory as a page's name.

 

All of them are search engine friendly.

 

Thank you for Info

 

/id/artice.html this one is much batter for the SEO