File extensions and SEO

Say we have a URL:

Would you get better seo without an extension such as .html? For example:

Is there a difference between the two at all?

 

Some robots and visitors will confuse the 1st one as directory, so except for high security reason, you should keep it with the extension.

 

Hey there,

I would just give it the extension.

If you ever need to change it later on, you can always do a 301 redirect.

Sincerely,
Travis Walters

 

A directory is www.mysite.com/permalink-to-this-article/index.php

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I don't think users get confused by this. Take a look at the Myspace URLs. That doesn't seem to be stopping anybody.

There is one thing to consider:
www.mysite.com/permalink-to-this-article/index.php and www.mysite.com/permalink-to-this-article can be considered two different pages and you could have a PR leak if a person just happened to link to www.mysite.com/permalink-to-this-article/index.php

So, in that regard, it may just be simpler to force the www.mysite.com/permalink-to-this-article.html or whatever.

Brandon

 

I would add the extension where possible as it will appear as a static page, which is better for SEO purposes.

 

Thanks, I'll go with the extensions!

 

I've seen both work...some sites that don't use the .html site have awesome ranks for lots of pages...but .html definitely won't hurt so I'd go with html

 

I think developers get confused by this. I think users don't even know enough to consider that there's a difference. Like you said, the MySpace crowd, the ones who want to use web sites instead of monetize them, those people just don't care either way.