Is there a difference between linking to www.example.com/site/index.html and www.example.com/site/ since it'll point to the same page? I point everything i can to a folder on my website, i just think it looks better when the browser doesn't display the name of the file. Is this wrong, right, good or bad?
It's better to link to the folder
- If sometimes you link to www.example.com/site/index.html and other times to www.example.com/site/ you will end up with a spitted pagerank
If you link to a page instead of a folder
- It's harder to remember. (was it www.example.com/contact or www.example.com/contactUs.html?)
- It looks ugly as hell
- You are exposing the technology behind the page (index.php, index.asp, etc) and if later you decide to switch you will have a hell of a time mapping the old urls to the new ones
www.example.com/site/index.html and www.example.com/site/
Pointing to the bare directory, without the directory index, is prefered.
Although the same content might be displayed on your server, these are different URLs. Search engines will see these two URLs as different and might perceive this as duplicate content if both these URLs are used on your site, or in-bound links go to both. Only "www.example.com/site/" should be used (it's cleaner) and ".../index.html" should redirect to ".../". The actual file returned when you request "www.example.com/site/" is dependent on your server and the value of the
DirectoryIndex directive (Apache). It could be anything you like, not necessarily "index.html".
From an SEO point of view it is only "bad" if you mix the two and both are accessible.