Which url is more seo friendly?

This one:
http://domain.com/content/name/etc
Or this one:
http://domain.com/content/name/etc.html

 

As long as you are doing enough back-linking, I don't think it makes a difference.

 

Well i ask since i noticed most of seo friendly scripts uses /name/etc organization,vbuletin seo as well,but phpbb seo mod uses etc.html.

 

Both are SEO friendly as long as the url do not get very long.

 

There are a few things to consider for your url:

-the domain name shold b 2 words with no numbers or hyphens
-must be a .com
-keep it less than 25 characters
-put your primary keyword in the domain name
-and make it easy to remember

just look at some of the stuff that's already high on google for some ideas...u should b fine.

 

Both will be fine It's all based in the method of building links. Anyway, avoid making URLs so long to make it more search engine friendly.

 

i think it's the same and SE will scan url and understand the same meanng.

 

Good points..... Both URLs are fine........

 

both are same.....your link building Methodology will identify to search engine as an friendly URL.

 

Thanks,good to know.

 

Google is perfectly happy with hyphens. But I also recommend against them. Apply the "radio test" on your domain. Could you easily advertise this domain on the radio? For example:

weight loss guides dot com is easier to say and remember than
weight hyphen loss hyphen guides dot com

What for? Why a .com? .coms do not automatically rank better. It depends on the site. If your site is targeting a specific country, use that country's extension. So, for example, if your site is for the UK only, it's much better now to get a .co.uk domain.

Yes, try and keep it a little short. Too long will be bad for SEO.

If at all possible, do this. It does help. But it's only one small factor.

Definitely. See about the "radio test" I mentioned before.

You should always research your competition first. SEO is basically doing what your cmpetitors are, only doing it a little better

 

HI
Both URL are SEO friendly.

 

I agree w/ EdGray two posts up on ALL points.

The only additional comment I would have is in regard to "must be a .com". That should read "should be a .com if at all possible". The .com TLD does not rank any better than a .net, .org, etc. TLD. However, .com is perceived by many on the web as a more legitimate domain than .net.

By this I mean that when both an example.com and example.net URL are seen in the same SERP listing with equivalent <title> and snippets for a particular search, I am of the opinion that people are more likely to click on the .com. I don't know if it's because they think the .com is likely the older, more established, original domain (and the .net is just trying to take advantage of the .com's success) or what. Perhaps it's because people know that when registering domains companies RARELY pick a .net when the .com is available. Who knows... But technically speaking, from a ranking perspective, Google at least is TLD agnostic (except for country specific domain names as Ed mentioned which are automatically assumed ONLY to be targetting the corresponding country specific version of the Google index).

But EdGray is dead on on all points. I was going to respond until I read his response. Rep added.

 

Thanks. It's definitely true that .com domains are often regarded by people more favourably. It's also what people tend to default to when trying to remember a domain if they only remember the name...

 

Adding keywords to the url is a SEO friendly one and it does not mean .html or php

 

edgray good define.

 

I think both are perfectly fine.

 

both are seo friendly but i would prefer to use .html .

 

Such a simple but effective method. Rep added!

 

the same problem to me. i checked the link status in yahoo to my site., it shows
http://www.worldwidesatellites.com for 749 links and
http://www.worldwidesatellites.com/catalog/ for 45, 000 links

but both are same url(its a home page url). now what can i use the url for link building.