URL Extension Pro and Cons: What’s Your Strategy?
Thinking of the URL structure of your future site is a very important step. Give it more time to make sure you plan everything ahead.
One thing to take into consideration here is whether your site URLs need an extension at the end or not (examples: .html, .php, etc).
Two contradicting points of view are based on the following:
No URL extension needed: This will ensure you will have no problem with any possible technology changes (e.g. moving the site to a new content management system in the future).
Yes, do add URL extension: (Voiced by Matt Cutts in this video response) Although there is no direct impact on rankings, an URL extension makes it clear both to a user and a search bot whether this is a page or subdirectory.
What’s your opinion? Do you prefer to add the URL extension? Do you think there’s any difference at all?
Ann Smarty
Latest posts by Ann Smarty (see all)
- What is the Current State with Directories? - April 29, 2013
- Get on Top of Google SERP by Optimizing for Local Search Results - February 9, 2013
- Get Tweets and Likes at Viral Content Buzz - October 12, 2012
33 Responses to “URL Extension Pro and Cons: What’s Your Strategy?”
Newsletter
Join the Contest!
Tags
Our Projects
POLL ARTICLE: URL Extension Pro and Cons: What?s Your Strategy? http://bit.ly/18iNJi #seo
I’ve never see any rankings drop due to URL extension. I really like websites with no URL extension. It looks like clean.
Steve Reply:
September 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I agree but, if the page appears to be a directory is there any change in rankings. all in all does it make any difference to have an extension. would a page with a .html extension score more highly then a page with a .php extension
I do not mind if there is an extension.
However, I feel they must be standard extensions (html, htm, php)
We use a CMS that puts .do as the extension. In the future, if we ever change to a different CMS, all of our pages must be 301′d to standard extensions.
I don’t really mind if there is an extension or not but I always use a .PHP for any websites I build. I don’t really think there is any difference, it’s just a matter of what the web developer chooses to do.
I know one benefit to not using an extension is to reduce the overall URL size, which is just better overall. Not that the 4/5 characters that are in the .html or .php really add a lot, but sometimes small things can make a difference.
It is nice to go without so that if you decide to change in the future (for the case some great new web development language gets released), you can keep your structure intact without having to set up new redirects.
Panos Ladas Reply:
September 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am
That’s the best point that I have seen on this issue. Shorter URLs just look better
Always the former these days. I doubt there is much, if any, user experience benefit to file extensions, and the search engines can work our what’s a page and what’s a subdir just fine without our help, it seems.
As per my perception folder structure (without any extensions)using in url are will be useful for hassle free technology change and securing attack on website. i dont think urls are with extenstions(.php, .html or .aspx) or without extensions having raking drop.. thanks for sharing your insights.
Received email with attachment, extension .url with file type application/octet-stream. How do I open the download with url extension?
I had never thought about this approach before, but it is really neat. Unfortunately I have too many legacy online files to change but it is certainly something to thin about in new applications. The one disadvantage as Matt Cutts pointed out is that people may assume it is a folder. Of course to avoid that you could use a simple LTD like .p for page. It seems to work.
Without. Definitely. Contrary to what Matt says in his video: “People like to know that it is an .html page they are clicking…” I would argue that the majority of web users don’t understand file extensions. They just want their search results to be viewable.
I don’t think people (in general) know the difference between .htm, .html, .php, or .aspx, (more to come)?
My two cents.
It’s extremely hard to say, I don’t know… I believe that Google at this point understands that an HTML page, category page (with an index file) or a php page can all provide valuable information.
Setting pages to the end slash / is generally best & cleaner as you change your pagetypes without having to change or 301 your internal or inbound links and you can have related images in that directory to both support the page and improve image search.
To tie up any potential canonicalization concerns then be sure to have your index/default page always 301 redirect at the end slash /
,Michael Martin
Personally I prefer not using a file extension on my new site developments – I really doubt Google will have problems figuring out what’s a page and what’s a directory (unless your site is really badly built!). I don’t see Wikipedia having problems with this approach
Reasons for not displaying the extension from the mobile world.
I believe that Google at this point understands that an HTML page, category page (with an index file) or a php page can all provide valuable information.
I would argue that the majority of web users don’t understand file extensions. They just want their search results to be viewable.great post.
I don’t really mind if there is an extension or not but I always use a .PHP for any websites I build.thanks a lot.
We are the best company for a friendship.
I would argue that the majority of web users don’t understand file extensions.
I really doubt Google will have problems figuring out what’s a page and what’s a directory (unless your site is really badly built!).
I prefer to add the URL extension in end of the url.
I really doubt Google will have problems figuring out what’s a page and what’s a directory (unless your site is really badly built!).
Tough call. I know I’m delivering an HTML page so I use a .html extension, even if it is parsed and executed PHP. But I personally think some caches have problems with these, assuming it is static and ignoring any cache info you send. I’d personally stick with .html for now, but it is getting harder to do so. The only problem I have with not using an extension is that it is confusingly similar to a directory, as noted above. In short, I’m still up in the air.
We can see lots of different opinions on that subject. I would recommend to listen to Matt Cutts, he seems to be the only relyable source on that one
URL Extension Pro and Cons: What’s Your Strategy? http://dailyseotip.com/url-extension-pro-and-cons/356/ #url #extension
Nice to have an article on this. Thanks.
I shall trust Matt Cuts on it.
I always use extension – it may not look pretty, but it tells you immediately what type of page you are dealing with…
I loved your tips. I’ll put into practice.
Congratulations!
Thanks.
thanks very much.
I had my site professionally built and url extensions are used. Not entirely sure what the difference is or if their is any benefit but hopefully it doesn’t have a negative impact on my site.