Why isn't SEOMoz using File Extensions (*.html etc) on any of their web page URLs?
-
...and what is the SEO benefit of this? This video from Matt Cutts suggests using file extentions, except for a directory.
-
Hey,
I don't think there is any SEO benefits and the video your are referring to is somehow outdated and ironic as Matt Cutts doesn't display any file extension on his blog neither.
On a usability stand point, it is better for users if the URL doesn't have any extension so they doesn't have to remember if the URL was ending with either .htm, .html, .php, .aspx, .asp, .jsp, etc.
The shorter, the better. A shorter URL will be easier to share (ex: on twitter), tell on the phone, quicker to type, look better in SERPs, etc.
Best regards,
Guillaume Voyer. -
Maybe, "Don't do as we do, do as we say."
SEOmoz has gone through stratospheric growth and not every aspect of their site is up to the best industry standards at this given moment in time. I do not work for SEOmoz but I pretend to know what is going on from time to time.
-
The only seo benefit is that the can change the site programming technology for example from php move to asp or perl or another language without changing the url structure.
Consider this:
If they have url.php and after 1 year they decide to move to asp language then all url.php should be redirected to url.asp.
I think this is the reason, maybe they have a different!
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
When using long-tail keywords, should you exactly match for the url or delete "in" "to" etc.?
long-tail keyword - "seizures in adults with no history" Should you include "in and with" in the url?
On-Page Optimization | | Moleculera0 -
Is there a limit to the number of duplicate pages pointing to a rel='canonical ' primary?
We have a situation on twiends where a number of our 'dead' user pages have generated links for us over the years. Our options are to 404 them, 301 them to the home page, or just serve back the home page with a canonical tag. We've been 404'ing them for years, but i understand that we lose all the link juice from doing this. Correct me if I'm wrong? Our next plan would be to 301 them to the home page. Probably the best solution but our concern is if a user page is only temporarily down (under review, etc) it could be permanently removed from the index, or at least cached for a very long time. A final plan is to just serve back the home page on the old URL, with a canonical tag pointing to the home page URL. This is quick, retains most of the link juice, and allows the URL to become active again in future. The problem is that there could be 100,000's of these. Q1) Is it a problem to have 100,000 URLs pointing to a primary with a rel=canonical tag? (Problem for Google?) Q2) How long does it take a canonical duplicate page to become unique in the index again if the tag is removed? Will google recrawl it and add it back into the index? Do we need to use WMT to speed this process up? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | dsumter0 -
Implementing Schema.org on a web page
Hi all, As we know, implementing Schema doesn't change the look & feel of a web page for the users. So here is my Question.. Could we implement Schema markup on the web pages only for Bots (but not visible to users in a Source code) so that page load time doesn't increase?
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
Page authority still on 1 after url change and 301 redirect
Hi Moz analytics suggestion to help ranking is to have a keyword or phrase in the url so I advised a client to do this they changed one of their pages urls, this page previously had a page authority of 26 since the change its gone down to 1.
On-Page Optimization | | genkee
I advised them that they must do a 301 from the old page but they took a few weeks to do this, would this of affected it why is it not showing up yet its been 3 weeks now, since the 301 and 5 weeks since the url change.0 -
Does Google use 302's to pass value to the target page?
Hi, I've received the below advice, is this correct? Throughout the site, the 302 (moved temporarily) status code is used for redirects, which Google will use to pass value to the target page. Is this correct? I was under the impression a 301 was used to pass value to the target page? Could someone explain the difference between a 301 and a 302, I'm not 100% sure. Thanks, Nathan
On-Page Optimization | | Heehaw0 -
Search Pages outranking Product Pages
A lot of the results seen in the search engines for our site are pages from our search results on our site, i.e. Widgets | Search Results This has happened over time and wasn't intentional, but in many cases we see our search results pages appearing over our actual product pages in search, which isn't ideal. Simply blocking indexing of these pages via robots wouldn't be ideal, at least all at once as we would have that period of time where those Search Results pages would be offline and our product pages would still be at the back of ranking. Any ideas on a strategy to replace these Search Results with the actual products in a way that won't hurt us too bad during the transition? Or a way to make the actual product pages rank above the search results? Currently, it is often the opposite. Thanks! Craig
On-Page Optimization | | TheCraig0 -
Is it good to have dashes in url's
When using keywords in url's for internal pages, isn't it a good idea to use dashes or underscores in the url between the keywords?
On-Page Optimization | | BradBorst0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0