> If a site uses the HTML <base> tag (seehttp://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_base.asp)
> will the spiders read the relative paths as if they were absolute
> paths?  Using the HTML <base> tag would minimize the page weight
> versus using an absolute path on each HREF.  The use of absolute paths
> is being instituted for SEO purposes.

> Thanks!!

> The major search engines will recognize and respect a <base> tag, but
> don't do it thinking that reducing the byte count of your pages
> increases keyword density and will, in turn, boost your rankings.  The
> search engines pretty much ignore the HTML mark-up in that regard -
> even MSN.  And absolute URLs are slightly safer that relying on a
> <base> tag in terms of protecting your content from scrapers and other
> schemes by insuring that even if your pages are copied, the links on
> those pages still point to your site.  So if you're already using
> absolute URLs, don't change.  If you're using relative URLs now, using
> a proper <base> tag can't hurt and can also add some protection from
> scrapers.

> On May 21, 4:15 pm, Tribune Interactive SEO Team wrote:

> > If a site uses the HTML <base> tag (seehttp://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_base.asp)
> > will the spiders read the relative paths as if they were absolute
> > paths?  Using the HTML <base> tag would minimize the page weight
> > versus using an absolute path on each HREF.  The use of absolute paths
> > is being instituted for SEO purposes.

> > Thanks!!- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -