Which url is more seo friendly?

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by jacobkell, Jun 23, 2009.

0
Page 2 of 2
  1. PolarWebDesign

    PolarWebDesign Guest

    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #21
    I don't thing it is that much of an importance which of the URLs is more SEO friendly. Try it and you will see. If I were you, I would rather focus on things that bring greater effect than that.
     
    PolarWebDesign, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  2. mrandrei

    mrandrei Peon

    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    9
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #22
    Both links are SEO-friendly. It doesn't matter which one of them you choose. It boils down to linkbuilding in the end.
     
    mrandrei, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  3. Canonical

    Canonical Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    141
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #23
    To answer the OP's question, these are both SEO friendly URLs (assuming "content", "name", and "etc" are keyword rich). The search engines could care less about the file externsion or even whether you have one or not.

    Personally, now that I've had experience using a commercial CMS, I prefer extensionless URLs that always end in '/' because they just look better IMO. Even without a CMS i can achieve extensionless URLs by having every page be a default document inside a folder and using 301 redirects to insure that browsers and crawlers always see the folder name as the page name... So extensionless URLs can be implemented on any web site, regardless of whether you use server-side scripting, pure HTML, or a CMS. So as you change technologies you can keep the exact same URLs.

    For example, if your site is a pure HTML site, you simply use folders as pages and place index.html files in each folder. Then you set up one Mod Rewrite rule in your root .htaccess file that says essentially, "Anytime someone requests a URL ending in index.html, truncate the index.html from the URL and 301 redirect to the folder it lives in."

    So all requests for pages like http://www.example.com/folder/subfolder/index.html would always get 301 redirected to http://www.example.com/folder/subfolder/.

    Bottomline, either ULR will work. The engines don't care.
     
    Canonical, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  4. falguni1

    falguni1 Peon

    Messages:
    3,016
    Likes Received:
    66
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    falguni1, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  5. BeeArcade

    BeeArcade Active Member

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    #25
    both the same in the eyes of SEO.....but html looks good to me
     
    BeeArcade, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  6. sam787

    sam787 Banned

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    I dont think there is a big differece. i agree with dp members. both are seo friendly
     
    sam787, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  7. ericajoieake

    ericajoieake Guest

    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    it depends on how optimized the url and how many backlinks have.
     
    ericajoieake, Jun 25, 2009 IP
  8. Hawkeye11

    Hawkeye11 Peon

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #28
    Yep keep your domain relative and the "URL" part of it short and sweet... include a keyword or two if possible.. both will work out
     
    Hawkeye11, Jun 25, 2009 IP
Page 2 of 2