Full URL - Absolute URL - Relative URL - Which one is search engine friendly?

Hi,

In webpages, while giving href link, we have to use what pattern of url (Full URL - Absolute URL - Relative URL?). Which url format is search engine friendly?

Please Help!

Regards
Ramki

 

"Absolute" is better than "Relative", because there is no possibility for ambiguity. "Full" URLs can possibly help protect you from being "scraped".

More important is to make sure that you are always consistent: link to either "domain,com" or "www,domain,com", and either "directory/" or "directory/index.html". Never mix these up...

Cryo.

 

Finally, which one is more search engine friendly "Full URL" or "Absolute URL"?

 

personally i believe "http://www.domain.com" is any day better than "domain,com". Plus, in case as an SEO you are targetting a specific inside page for a specific keyword then also it has to be a full url.

 

till date i have mostly used relative url . why exactly a full url better ?

 

Because search engines making less mistakes when they indexing your pages and with full urls they can't lost there. Logic I preffer full url.

 

I use relatrive urls and search engines never made a mistake. It is a matter of preference, I guess. I am actually trying to make wikipedia like URLs for my upcoming sites,
for eg.
www.mysite.com/my-keyword-content


I will try on couple of sites and post here later on how was the performance.

 

What kind of mistakes would a search engine make? There's not much room for error with:

AbsoluteUrl = RootUrl + RelativeUrl

Any mistakes would be in the coder's hands and they could happen whichever method s/he used.

 

I guess it wont make much difference, and search engine considers them equally.
However, I have observed this that relative URL are considered as internal links, and the full are considered as external ones(just my observation could be wrong)

 

I'm using relative URLs (like "../categorie/page.html") for the majority of my links, and I've noted that several minor crawlers are trying to get incorrect URLs. So probably Absolute URLs will be a good choice.

 

full url are much better... i agree it is more specific and no chance of errors.

 

absolute all the way!

 

Not matter what url are you using but I always use absolute URL because it ends for broken links

 

I use relative URLs almost all of the time and NEVER have any broken links according to Google Webmaster Tools.

And I have never found a problem with any indexing with relative URLs. All 4000+ of my pages are indexed as I would expect and they ALL have relative URLs.

 

LOL..... It's Alive

N.

 

Resurrected from the dead it is!!! LOL

 

I'm sorry to sound like a goof here, but to help me better follow along with this thread, can someone give me some definitions/ examples of the different types of urls being discussed here? I'm a little confused as to exactly what relative, absolute, etc means.

 

Taken from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Url#Absolute_vs_relative_URLs)

An absolute URL is one that points to the exact location of a file. It is unique, meaning that if two URLs are identical, they point to the same file.[7] An example is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Raster_to_Vector_Mechanical_Example.jpg

A relative URL points to the location of a file from a point of reference. This reference is usually the directory beneath the file.[7] It is preceded by two dots (../directory_path/file.txt) for the directory above, one dot (./directory_path/file.txt) for the current directory or without the beginning slash (directory_path/file.txt), which is also the current directory.