How important is the file extension in the URL for images?
-
I know that descriptive image file names are important for SEO. But how important is it to include .png, .jpg, .gif (or whatever file extension) in the url path? i.e. https://example.com/images/golden-retriever vs. https://example.com/images/golden-retriever.jpg
Furthermore, since you can set the filename in the Content-Disposition response header, is there any need to include the descriptive filename in the URL path?
Since I'm pulling most of our images from a database, it'd be much simpler to not care about simulating a filename, and just reference an image id in my templates.
Example:
1. Browser requests GET /images/123456
2. Server responds with image setting both Content-Disposition, and Link (canonical) headersContent-Disposition: inline; filename="golden-retriever"
Link: <https: 123456="" example.com="" images="">; rel="canonical"</https:> -
In theory, there should be no difference - the canonical header should mean that Google treats the inclusion of /images/123456 as exactly the same as including /images/golden-retriever.
It is slightly messier so I think that if it was easy, I'd go down the route of only ever using the /golden-retriever version - but if that's difficult, this is theoretically the same so should be fine.
-
@Will Thank you so much for this response. Very helpful.
"If you can't always refer to the image by its keyword-rich filename"...
If I'm already including the canonical link header on the image, and am able to serve from both /images/123456 and /images/golden-retriever (canonical), is there any benefit to referencing the canonical over the other in my image tags?
-
Hi James. I've responded with what I believe is a correct answer to MarathonRunner's question. There are a few inaccuracies in your responses to this thread - as pointed out by others below - please can you target your future responses to areas where you are confident that you are correct and helpful? Many thanks.
-
@MarathonRunner - you are correct in your inline responses - it's totally valid to serve an image (or other filetype) without an extension, with its type identified by the Content-Type. Sorry that you've had a less-than-helpful experience here so far.
To answer your original questions:
- From an SEO perspective, there is no need that I know of for your images to have a file extension - the content type should be fine
- However - I have no reason to think that a filename in the Content-Disposition header will be recognised as a ranking signal - what you are describing is a rare use-case and I haven't seen any evidence that it would be recognised by the search engines as being the "real" filename
If you can't always refer to the image by its keyword-rich filename, then could you:
- Serve it as you propose (though without the Content-Disposition filename)
- Serve a rel="canonical" link to a keyword-rich filename (https://example.com/images/golden-retriever in your example)
- Also serve the image on that URL
This only helps if you are able to serve the image on the /images/golden-retriever path, but need to have it available at /images/123456 for inclusion in your own HTML templates.
I hope that helps.
-
If you really did your research you would have noticed the header image is not using an extension.
-
Again, you're mistaken. The Content-Type response header tells the browser what type of file the resource is (mime type). This is _completely different _from the file extension in URL paths.
In fact, on the web all the file extensions are faked through the URL path. For example, this page's URL path is:
https://moz.com/community/q/how-important-is-the-file-extension-in-the-url-for-images
It's not
https://moz.com/community/q/how-important-is-the-file-extension-in-the-url-for-images.html
How does the browser know the the page is an html doc? Because of the Content-Type response header. The faked "extension" in the URL path, is unnecessary.
You can view http response headers for any URL using this tool.
-
-
Do you need a new keyboard?
-
@James Wolff: I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic here. As it's totally fine to serve it without the extension. There are many more ways for a crawler to understand what type a file is. Including what @MarathonRunner is talking about here.
-
This isn't accurate. File extension (in the url path) is not the same as the **Content-Type **response header. Browsers respect the response header Content-Type over whatever extension I use in the path.
Example: try serving a file /golden-retriever.png with a content type of image/jpeg. Your browser will understand the file as a .jpg. If you attempt to save, your browser will correct to golden-retriever.jpg.
You can route URLs however you want.
Additionally, I'm not aware of any way browsers "leverage cache by content type". Browsers handle cache by the etag/expires header.
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
-
Submitting URLs After New Search Console
Hi Everyone I wanted to see how people submit their urls to Google and ensure they are all being indexed. I currently have an ecommerce site with 18,000 products. I have sitemaps setup, but noticed that the various product pages haven't started ranking yet. If I submit the individual url through the new Google Search Console I see the page ranking in a matter of minutes. Before the new Google Search Console you could just ask Google to Fetch/Render an XML sitemap and ask it to crawl all the links. I don't see the same functionality working today on Google Search Console and was wondering if there are any new techniques people could share. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | abiondo
Anthony1 -
Google disavow file
Does anybody have any idea how often Google reads the disavow file?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Www. or naked url?
Hi everyone, I am about to start a new WordPress site and debating whether to use www or naked URL for the URL structure. Using naked URL makes sense from a branding and minimalistic perspective but I am reading that using naked URL might have some technical deficiencies. Specifically, cookie issues and DNS can't be cname. Are these technical deficiencies still valid when using naked url? Would appreciate any feedback on this! Cheers
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nsereke1 -
Automatically check if URL has been optimised?
Hi guys, I have a massive list of URLs and want to check if the primary keyword for each URL has been optimised. I'm looking for something similar to Moz on-page grader which grades the URL and primary keyword with a single metric e.g. grade a, b, c However, Moz doesn't offer an API to pull this score automatically. I was wondering does anyone know of any tools which you can access their API to do something like this? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines. Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed. Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise. Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.0 -
Duplicate Content with URL Parameters
Moz is picking up a large quantity of duplicate content, consists mainly of URL parameters like ,pricehigh & ,pricelow etc (for page sorting). Google has indexed a large number of the pages (not sure how many), not sure how many of them are ranking for search terms we need. I have added the parameters into Google Webmaster tools And set to 'let google decide', However Google still sees it as duplicate content. Is it a problem that we need to address? Or could it do more harm than good in trying to fix it? Has anyone had any experience? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Linking to URLs With Hash (#) in Them
How does link juice flow when linking to URLs with the hash tag in them? If I link to this page, which generates a pop-over on my homepage that gives info about my special offer, where will the link juice go to? homepage.com/#specialoffer Will the link juice go to the homepage? Will it go nowhere? Will it go to the hash URL above? I'd like to publish an annual/evergreen sort of offer that will generate lots of links. And instead of driving those links to homepage.com/offer, I was hoping to get that link juice to flow to the homepage, or maybe even a product page, instead. And just updating the pop over information each year as the offer changes. I've seen competitors do it this way but wanted to see what the community here things in terms of linking to URLs with the hash tag in them. Can also be a use case for using hash tags in URLs for tracking purposes maybe?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MiguelSalcido0 -
URL Shorteners. Are they SEO Friendly?
Do URL shortener services like bit.ly act as 301 redirects? I was thinking about utilizing one for longer query based URLs and didn't want to risk losing link juice. Thanks for the insight! Regards - Kyle
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kchandler0