Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
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
-
Removing Toxic Back Links Targeting Obscure URL or Image
There are 2 or 3 URLs and one image file that dozens of toxic domains are linking to on our website. Some of these pages have hundreds of links from 4-5 domains. Rather than disavowing these links, would it make sense to simply break these links, change the URL that the link to and not create a redirect? It seems like this would be a sure fire way to get rid of these links. Any downside to this approach? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan1
Alan1 -
Null Alt Image Tags vs Missing Alt Image Tags
Hi, Would it be better for organic search to have a null alt image tag programatically added to thousands of images without alt image tags or just leave them as is. The option of adding tailored alt image tags to thousands of images is not possible. Is having sitewide alt image tags really important to organic search overall or what? Right now, probably 10% of the sites images have alt img tags. A huge number of those images are pages that aren Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
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 -
Canonical URL & sitemap URL mismatch
Hi We're running a Magento store which doesn't have too much stock rotation. We've implemented a plugin that will allow us to give products custom canonical URLs (basically including the category slug, which is not possible through vanilla Magento). The sitemap feature doesn't pick up on these URLs, so we're submitting URLs to Google that are available and will serve content, but actually point to a longer URL via a canonical meta tag. The content is available at each URL and is near identical (all apart from the breadcrumbs) All instances of the page point to the same canonical URL We are using the longer URL in our internal architecture/link building to show this preference My questions are; Will this harm our visibility? Aside from editing the sitemap, are there any other signals we could give Google? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
301 redirect with /? in URL
For a Wordpress site that has the ending / in the URL with a ? after it... how can you do a 301 redirect to strip off anything after the / For example how to take this URL domain.com/article-name/?utm_source=feedburner and 301 to this URL domain.com/article-name/ Thank you for the help
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | COEDMediaGroup0 -
Image Maps
Hey forum, I'm curious about Image Maps. Few things I'm not sure about: 1. Will the links be followed? If so, will Google respect rel="nofollow"? 2. Will the image be considered 1 image? (indexed as image, etc.) Or will each map segment be treated as a separate image? 3. Any other SEO pros\cons to consider when adding an image map to an existing page? Thanks, Corwin.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | corwin0 -
How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/). My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries. So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #). I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way? If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue. Best, -G
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Celts180 -
Brackets in a URL String
Was talking with a friend about this the other day. Do Brackets and or Braces in a URL string impact SEO? (I know short human readable etc... but for the sake of conversation has anyone relaised any impacts of these particular Characters in a URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AU-SEO0