Ending URLs in .html versus /
-
Hi there!
Currently all the URLs on my website, even the home page, end it .html, such as http://www,consumerbase.com/index.html
Is this bad?
Is there any benefit to this?Should I remove it and just have them end with a forward slash?
If I 301 redirect the old .html URLs to the forward slash URLs, will I lose PA?Thanks!
-
As everyone else has said, it doesn't really make a difference whether you have a file/extension as part of the URL. But if you do change your URLs and 301 redirect the old URLs to the new, you will lose some link equity (typically about 10%-15%); I'm not sure if this devaluation is reflected in OSE/Moz metrics.
That said, I would recommend showing the directory without a file extension (using consumerbase.com/ instead of consumerbase.com/index.html). If you change platforms in the future to something that runs off PHP or some other language, displaying .html file types might not be an option but you can always display the directory. If you set yourself up now to display without the doc type, you don't have to worry about these changes in the future as much.
-
In my experience you will generate more consistent inbound links to the root url - http://www.consumerbase.com/index.html - if you were to use that as the root (canonical) url and do the following
1. Ask anyone linking to /index.html to link to http://www.consumerbase.com/
2. Once completed, 301 redirect /index.html to http://www.consumerbase.com/Ask yourself this: how often do you see someone refer an audience to http://www.consumerbase.com/index.html?
There rarely, do - out of convenience and ease of use / standardization.
So, for sharing and for ensuring that all inbound link weight is organized at only one canonical url I would suggest you consider using http://www.consumerbase.com/ at the root.
All other pages can use use .html just fine.
Hope this helps,
Todd -
Hey there!
There's no benefit or negative effect of this either way - so there's really nothing to worry about here.
Furthermore, if you type in http://www.consumerbase.com/ you get redirected to the .html version and it's the same for internal pages. This means you've not got any problems with duplicate URLs or content.
In short, everything is in order and from an SEO point of view there's no reason to make the change - all is well! The only reason why you may want to make the change is from a user experience point of view - but I don't think visitors to your site will be concerned with .html extensions at all.
Hope this helps to put your mind at rest!
-
-
Not bad
-
Benefit only comes from a usability preference. Do you think your readers would rather see it without the html suffix? Some people think so.. I personally don't think it matters at all but a lot of people will say "shorter is better." It also maximizes your compatibility should you ever change your format from an html to an active server page or something of the sort. (i think that's pretty rare though.)
-
No you will not lose PA. 301s maintain link juice (for the most part.)
-
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
-
URL in russian
Hi everyone, I am doing an audit of a site that currently have a lot of 500 errors due to the russian langage. Basically, all the url's look that way for every page in russian: http://www.exemple.com/ru-kg/pешения-для/food-packaging-machines/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alexrbrg
http://www.exemple.com/ru-kg/pешения-для/wood-flour-solutions/
http://www.exemple.com/ru-kg/pешения-для/cellulose-solutions/ I am wondering if this error is really caused by the server or if Google have difficulty reading the russian langage in URL's. Is it better to have the URL's only in english ?0 -
What would cause these ⠃︲蝞韤諫䴴SPপ� emblems in my urls?
In Search Console I am getting errors under other. It is showing urls that have this format- https://www.site.com/Item/654321~SURE⠃︲蝞韤諫䴴SPপ�.htm When clicked it shows 蝞韤諫䴴SPপ� instead of the % stuff. As you can see this is an item page and the normal item page pulls up fine with no issues. This doesn't show it is linked from anywhere. Why would google pull this url? It doesn't exist on the site anywhere. It is a custom asp.net site. This started happening in mid May but we didn't make any changes then.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Redirecting a Few URLs to a New Domain
We are in the process of buying the blog section of a site. Let's say Site A is buying Site B. We have taken the content from Site B and replicated it on Site A, along with the exact url besides the TLD. We then issued 301 redirects from Site B to Site A and initiated a crawl on those original Site B urls so Google would understand they are now redirecting to Site A. The new urls for Site A, with the same content are now showing up in Google's index if we do a site:SiteA.com search on the big G. Anyone have any experience with this as to how long before Site A urls should replace Site B urls in the search results? I undestand there may be a ranking difference and CTR difference based on domain bias, etc... I'm just asking if everything goes as planned and there isn't a huge issue, does the process take weeks or months?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoaustin0 -
Change url structure and keeping the social media likes/shares
Hi guys, We're thinking of changing the url structure of the tutorials (we call it knowledgebase) section on our website. We want to make it shorter URL so it be closer to the TLD. So, for the convenience we'll call them old page (www.domain.com/profiles/profile_id/kb/article_title) and new page (www.domain.com/kb/article_title) What I'm looking to do is change the url structure but keep the likes/shares we got from facebook. I thought of two ways to do it and would love to hear what the community members thinks is better. 1. Use rel=canonical I thought we might do a rel=canonical to the new page and add a "noindex" tag to the old page. In that way, the users will still be able to reach the old page, but the juice will still link to the new page and the old pages will disappear from Google SERP and the new pages will start to appear. I understand it will be pretty long process. But that's the only way likes will stay 2. Play with the og:url property Do the 301 redirect to the new page, but changing the og:url property inside that page to the old page url. It's a bit more tricky but might work. What do you think? Which way is better, or maybe there is a better way I'm not familiar with yet? Thanks so much for your help! Shaqd
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ShaqD0 -
Should /node/ URLs be 301 redirect to Clean URLs
Hi All! We are in the process of migrating to Drupal and I know that I want to block any instance of /node/ URLs with my robots.txt file to prevent search engines from indexing them. My question is, should we set 301 redirects on the /node/ versions of the URLs to redirect to their corresponding "clean" URL, or should the robots.txt blocking and canonical link element be enough? My gut tells me to ask for the 301 redirects, but I just want to hear additional opinions. Thank you! MS
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MargaritaS0 -
Canonical url issue
Canonical url issue My site https://ladydecosmetic.com on seomoz crawl showing duplicate page title, duplicate page content errors. I have downloaded the error reports csv and checked. From the report, The below url contains duplicate page content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trixmediainc
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd And other duplicate urls as per report are,
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&click=colorsu&brands=66 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd But on every these url(all 4) I have set canonical url. That is the original url and an existing one(not 404). https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=0 Then how this issues are showing like duplicate page content. Please give me an answer ASAP.0 -
Sitelinks in 7-pack / blended / local results
I have a client who has been ranking well in the 7-pack for local searches, for 1.5+ years. I recently noticed a competitor's Google Places link has little sitelinks attached, but my client's link doesn't have them. This makes me sad. To provide a concise question: what can I do to help my client get sitelinks along with his Google Places listing in the 7-pack / blended / local results? Some example data: My client's business is called Ambiance Dental and his website is www.mycalgarydentist.com. An example search to see what I'm talking about is "calgary family dentist". The competitor that's showing sitelinks is www.aestheticdentalstudio.ca which has a title of "Dentist in Calgary | Cosmetic Treatment in Calgary". The sitelinks you'll see are "Dr. Gordon Chee", "Links", "Dr. Alexa Geminiano". Notice that my client doesn't have the same sitelinks. Some further data: If you do a a search for "calgary aesthetic dentist" you'll see the competitor's 1-box local result (is that what it's called?) with his Google Places data and sitelinks. If you search for "calgary ambiance dentist" you'll get a similar layout SERP for my client, again with no sitelinks. My client's sitelinks: If you search for "ambiance dental calgary" you'll see that Google does offer sitelinks for his site, just not in Google Places it seems. My client's website: My client's website has the navigation coded as a list (UL) without any javascript or complicated code messing things up. The competitor's navigation is built similarly, though he has about 40 more pages in his main navigation. My client's page names are concise, which I've read helps with sitelinks, the website is coded very cleanly, the URLs of his site are clear and concise without a complicated folder structure, so it seems like we're doing everything right. I appreciate any input other mozzers can provide, and discussion on the topic. I'm sure there are others who would benefit from local sitelinks as well!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kenoshi0 -
URL formating is it worth changing?
One of my clients sites has almost OK URL's, set up something like the following: keyword2_keyword3_keyword1 Ideally the URL's would be more like this: keyword1-keyword2-keyword3 My question is is there any point in changing them and 301 redirecting them over just to get the target keywords in a better order and change the _ to a - ? Has anyone tried this and its worked or not worked, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Justin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrouchyKids0