Relative vs absolute URL?
Hymer
I am not sure if I have the terminology correct, but was there a discussion
about absolute URL's being better for SEO than relative URL's?
I mean is http://www.mysite.com/index.html better than /index.html ?
If so, what is the rationale?
Thanks,
Bob
Gido_
"Hymer" <ergobob@sonic[REMOVE].net> wrote in message
news:4425e4be$0$58113$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> I am not sure if I have the terminology correct, but was there a
discussion
> about absolute URL's being better for SEO than relative URL's?
>
> I mean is http://www.mysite.com/index.html better than /index.html ?
>
> If so, what is the rationale?
>
I'm somewhat of a noob, but I could think of 2...
- full url doesn't need figuring out - but since it's a robot, it shouldn't
be such a problem... ;-)
- full urls are usually outgoing links so can therefore be used to fool some
SEs ranking system...? (which I doubt as well)
Gido_
Roy Schestowitz
>
> "Hymer" <ergobob@sonic[REMOVE].net> wrote in message
> news:4425e4be$0$58113$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>> I am not sure if I have the terminology correct, but was there a
> discussion
>> about absolute URL's being better for SEO than relative URL's?
Could you please point to it? It would be interesting to read and further
discuss. *smile*
>> I mean is http://www.mysite.com/index.html better than /index.html ?
>>
>> If so, what is the rationale?
>>
>
> I'm somewhat of a noob, but I could think of 2...
>
> - full url doesn't need figuring out - but since it's a robot, it shouldn't
> be such a problem... ;-)
> - full urls are usually outgoing links so can therefore be used to fool
> some SEs ranking system...? (which I doubt as well)
Good points; and here is a third:
- full URL's add to the size of the page, which slows down crawling, adds
clutter, makes the pages in the site less 'portable' and reflects
unfavourably on the site (being less 'professional'), at least on the
surface of it. Whether such presumptuous factors will be perceived
negatively by crawlers, I don't know. Similar arguments may apply to markup
'volume', validity and use of Web standards (e.g. CSS-based design makes
pages 'leaner' when properly used).
Bets wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:35am up 18 days 0:20, 9 users, load average: 0.62, 0.71, 0.57
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Jim Carlock
> - full URL's add to the size of the page, which slows down crawling,
> adds clutter, makes the pages in the site less 'portable' and reflects
> unfavourably on the site (being less 'professional'), at least on the
> surface of it.
Hi Roy, the page size is valid, but the "clutter" issue is your own personal
opinion and really doesn't affect search engines at all, except in one very
limited special case. IF someone downloads a copy of the webpage and
publicly displays the copy, ALL the links will point back to the proper
site. This means that all the image references would need to be fully
qualified as well. In some ways it could possibly help out but in the long
run, though, it'll slow things down and I think the general consensus is
that it's frowned upon (as far as opinions go).
Jim Carlock
North Carolina Swimming Pools And Spas
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com
Hymer
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:e05nl0$tuh$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
> __/ [ Gido_ ] on Sunday 26 March 2006 06:19 \__
>
>>
>>
>> discussion
>>> about absolute URL's being better for SEO than relative URL's?
>
>
> Could you please point to it? It would be interesting to read and further
> discuss. *smile*
>
>
>>> I mean is http://www.mysite.com/index.html better than /index.html ?
>>>
>>> If so, what is the rationale?
>>>
>>
>> I'm somewhat of a noob, but I could think of 2...
>>
>> - full url doesn't need figuring out - but since it's a robot, it
>> shouldn't
>> be such a problem... ;-)
>> - full urls are usually outgoing links so can therefore be used to fool
>> some SEs ranking system...? (which I doubt as well)
>
>
> Good points; and here is a third:
>
> - full URL's add to the size of the page, which slows down crawling, adds
> clutter, makes the pages in the site less 'portable' and reflects
> unfavourably on the site (being less 'professional'), at least on the
> surface of it. Whether such presumptuous factors will be perceived
> negatively by crawlers, I don't know. Similar arguments may apply to
> markup
> 'volume', validity and use of Web standards (e.g. CSS-based design makes
> pages 'leaner' when properly used).
>
Hello Roy,
The topic was discussed in the past in three threads. You participated in
some of them:) They are linked below.
The way I am setup right now is that all internal links are relative and all
outbound links are absolute. I just wanted to know if those internal
relative links were the best way to do it from an SEO viewpoint.
Apparently, there seems to be no major differences with two exceptions: the
page will load faster with relative URL's but absolute URL's may have more
instances of keywords if the site name is a keyword. Neither of these seems
to be a compelling reason to change anything.
Do you agree?
Thanks,
Bob
Roy Schestowitz
Later in the day I thought about another possible impact. Could search
engines decide to calculate the markup/content ratio and then use that to
infer 'quality', as prejudiced as it may be? This could benefit bare-bone
pages, as well as pages that separate content from layout. How this ratio
can be used remains a riddle, but suppose that checking for JavaScript/CSS,
as well as using a renderer to 'see' the page, has true potential.
Roy Schestowitz
Another thought (as in reply to Jim) which boggled my mind this afternoon is
how awful it would be if search engines discouraged bad design due to their
very nature. It is happening already.
Examples:
* Links have classes (rel="nofollow"). Implications: difficult to understand
their value without , e.g. SearchStatus or "View Source Selection", citation
system (backlinks) may break, little involvement in comments, potential
decrease in spam volume.
* Content in page is repetitive and organic. It is aimed to improve ranks.
* URL's are too long. They attempt to embed keywords, but not necessary
context, e.g.:
/articles/2005/15/business/263585.htm
versus
/how_to_find_a_business_or_business_to_increase_revenue.htm (an arguable
example)
* Metadata increases page size but is not visible
* Sitemaps are delivered to and tailored for search engines rather than human
visitors
* ...
All in all, choose better design over a questionable reward. Just my opinion
anyway...
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:05pm up 18 days 7:50, 9 users, load average: 0.16, 0.44, 0.54
Andrew Heenan
> I mean is http://www.mysite.com/index.html better than /index.html ?
No.
Go for http://www.mysite.com/ or "/"
You should never have an internal link to 'index.anything'
--
Andrew Heenan
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/
Directory of Quality Directories
"I Don't Know A Lot - But I Know Spam When I See It"