While building internal links i usually just give the file name like abc.html. Recently i found out somewhere that search engines prefers full url links like http://www.abc.com/abc.html Although both type of links work fine on net, but just wanna know is it a myth or search engine gives preferance to such type of internal linking....
I'm pretty sure Matt Cutts did mention that absolute paths are preferred over relative ones. The rationale behind it is that this makes it easier for the spiders to follow the links, and thus eliminates a slight chance of possible indexing problems with your site if you use relative ones. Hope this helps, Warkot
Alot, I'm sure he's talking about having a proper "title" and or "alt" in the link. And oh yeah.. Fireslowsox sucks! = Trendy and caught on for no good reason.
Another good reason for using full paths is that it makes the content harder to steal. I've found duplicates of my site on the web, but they included all my absolute links, so at least I got links to my site out of it.
But giving full url is actually quiet hectic sometimes, specially if you have subfolders and needs to make changes in urls later on. But what i really wannt to know is that does giving full url links gives really benefit SEO wise. I would really like to have any senior member commenting on this.
I'm not so sure. Anyway, like I said, what does it have to do with choosing either relative or absolute URLs for your site? That's right, nothing. Groundless allegations aside, it's obvious you don't wanna save kittens. Start thinking about your karma before it's too late. Warkot
if 9 years fulltime web publishing is senior enough ... I use relative links ever since and never had any disadvantage SEO-wise but always excellent SEO results on all pages. I see NO reason why absolute links should be any advantage at all or any difference at all to bots and SE the bot always seed the complete link - just like YOU see when you move your cursor over a link relative or absolute look the same and act the same
I never had any trouble with relative paths either, but absolute paths are the way to go, at least according to Matt Cutts -- and I say this is the best evidence we can ever hope to get. It's all about preventing a potential problem with bots indexing your site. Nothing more, nothing less. It might never happen to you, but you can use absolute paths to be 100% on the safe side. ...And then you have a right to blame Matt Cutts' ass if you use absolute URLs and your site is still not indexed Warkot Code (markup):
A relative path look like this: "index.html" An absolute path looks like this "http://www.example.com/index.html" The absolute path contains the full path of the url. The relative one contains only the path relative to the current file location.
All we know is Matt Cutts recommends doing so. Relative vs absolute is ease of maintenance vs addressing a small risk of not being indexed properly by Googlebot. Take your pick Warkot
to to once dispite all current G problems to defend G bot after years of almost deaily life control of all bots and visitors, i never ever saw Gbot to msitbehave or loop hence if links are VERIFIED and thus working - whether relative or absolute - all the bots from all major SE always follow existing links correctly however OTHER bots, mostly in beta stage, like new small SE or NEW services using bots sometimes loop in correct links, as a webmaster you email the bot owner and usually the problem is fixed next day or next visit but looking at even larg website shows that many links to NOT exist - hence bots no matter relative or absolute links have nothing to follow or end somewhere in nirvana after 9 yrs of publishing with rel links i see zero problems - but the comfort of ease of maintenance and to possibility to create offline reading versions of content
my sites use relative addressing and have suffered from serious canonical issues from it, use relative if you dare, im changing to absolute.