14

The browser isn't looking for a file. It's just asking for a resource. The server then decides what that resource returns. At it's most basic level that "file" is literally just a file. In the case of the default index page of a directory how the server is set up will determine which files is returned. Some servers are configured by default to return index....


14

Your browsers doesn't load any file, it requests a resource which the server then provides at his discretion (lengthy elaboration below). If you type google.com into your browsers toolbar, the browser wil first append a protocol, either http:// or https. Then browser will look up the IP address belonging to google.com, which is 172.217.19.206. Your browser ...


4

This is the type of “cool” URI scheme that I aim for on my own personal website. Personally, the reason that I started to do so (and probably many more web designer/developers too!) was after reading the article “Cool URIs don't change” – this document was written by the World Wide Web's founding father, Tim Berners-Lee. In Tim Berners-Lee's famous article, ...


4

That would depend on your webserver configuration. Many webservers do come configured that way. Here is a snippet from /etc/apache2/apache2.conf on my Ubuntu Linux webserver: # # The following lines prevent .htaccess and .htpasswd files from being # viewed by Web clients. # <FilesMatch "^\.ht"> Require all denied </FilesMatch> Your ...


4

I'm wondering how I know what file is being rendered. I can eventually guess it accurately on a long enough timeline by simply explicitly calling on that filename in the URL. www.xyz.com/index.html fail to load anything? Then try www.xyz.com/index.htm and then so on until I get the site to render. I'm just looking for a shortcut to know what file my browser ...


3

No, the name does not matter. In the Google Search Console (and the Bing version of that, FWIW), you tell it which sitemaps to look at. Other search engines might look for sitemap.xml by default but this is not guaranteed nor standard behavior and doesn't really need to be worried about.


3

It won't hurt your web page rankings to use those techniques. Your pages will rank in web search just fine even if their assets frequently change URLs. If you are trying to get the images to rank in Google image search, then unstable image URLs will be a problem. For ranking the image itself, you should choose a URL that is stable. You can get around ...


3

Assuming the file name for your single page application is specifically index.html, rather than some other file same, such as single-page-application.html, whether or not you include the file name in your links should have no impact on SEO. I would, however, recommend using https if you aren't already, as this will be beneficial for SEO. https://webmasters....


3

Apache and Lighthttpd both have a directory listing mod that you need to enable, often by default these are disabled for security reasons. You can enable indexing by doing the following: Lighthttp To enable directory listings globally: dir-listing.activate = "enable" If you need it only for a directory, use conditionals: $HTTP["url"] =~ "^/download($|/)"...


3

Image filename is not very important. Because google know perfectly this truth that some Content Management Systems and many custom-made websites do not allow to edit image filenames and many images uploaded with unrelated filenames. Also many Web.2 and social websites, controlled by their users (Not admin) and images uploaded with dirty filenames. So ...


3

TWiki stores content directly in the file system. Look for twiki/data and twiki/pub directories. The twiki/data has directories representing TWiki webs (workspaces). Those webs contain files representing the wiki page data. There is a .txt file with page content, and a .txt,v file with page history. For example, page SlicedBread in the Eng web will be at ...


2

I completely agree to all the answers put above. Just adding that one of the reasons why extensions are hidden in URL is to security. Putting it simply, if you don't expose the extension in the URL, it is little hard to figure out the technology on which the application has been built. So lets say a page in made in PHP and the extension is not hidden, then a ...


2

In my opinion, image file names are one of the most important SEO factors... as long as it's valid and meaningful. Don't take the same exact image and rename it over and over. Don't give an image a deceptive file name. Let's say I have the following images on a website: black-and-white-dog.jpg friendly-orange-male-cat.jpg african-grey-parrot-77-years-old....


2

I would go with .html. The W3C actually recommends this practice in its CHIPs Note, and for two good reasons: To disguise the technology you are using today To keep your options open on the technology you will use in the future Even Tim Berners-Lee himself recommends not using technology-specific file extensions in his famous article “Cool URIs don't ...


2

So long as the entries in the sitemap point to the correct URLs and Google knows to access the sitemap file and is doing so, you're fine. The name of that file is not relevant to the SEO. In other words, my sitemap could be www.mysite.com/f*ckyougoogle.xml and neither the spider nor the algorithm would care.


2

Image file names do next to nothing for SEO except for, of course, image search. Same with the alt text. There was a point where SEO bloggers decided that the file name and alt text boosted search performance, however, this was not actually true. Content is used for text search. And please do not get me started on the scores of idiot SEO bloggers! The image ...


2

This is simply my opinion, based on coding and user usability observations. Though there may be a formal standard form for this, I've not seen it formulated anywhere. I think everything I've seen has always used a lowercase convention. Since you're using an Apache server, your file names are case-sensitive. Though you may know the file convention ...


2

I assume you are referring to the auto-generated directory index that Apache (mod_autoindex) generates. In this case, the filename is physically truncated (at 20 bytes by default) in the generated HTML source that comes from the server, so attempting to change the CSS will have no effect (and it will indeed be the same across all browsers). However, you can ...


2

That is pretty much what people - including me - do. Take a descriptive name but eventually there will be a conflict since many times people have photos of the subject in slightly different poses. One way to go further is to make the name more descriptive some metadata to it such as the time or the photographer's name like: cat_eating_mouse_by_joe.jpg or ...


2

When migrating from HTML to WordPress, the main thing to be kept in mind is the permalink structure. By default HTML pages have the extension of .html while WordPress URLs have no extensions. (You can activate them though). Now Google treats a www.example.com/page.html and www.example.com/page as two different URLs. Generally, there are two options: ...


2

The problem you are having is related to case sensitivity on a unix filesystem, as well as an incorrect file extension. In your HTML you have the filename thisWeek.png however you are linking to thisweek.jpg, these are two different files. Fixing the filename causes the image to load. Watch your case as well. thisWeek.jpg and thisweek.jpg are different. ...


2

The find command will find all the images. Run it like this, replacing some/directory/ with the where the images are actually located (like public/images/ or /var/www/mysite/wp-content/) find some/directory/ -name "*unsmushed*" Once you are happy that it has found the correct files, add the rm (remove) command to it to delete them: find some/directory/ -...


1

You can follow Google Image Publishing Guideline First. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/114016?hl=en&vid=0-1401327443069-1512401881759 You can make them unique by using a dash (-) instead of underscore (_) "cat-eating-mouse2.jpg" and "cat-eating-mouse3.jpg" that good from SEO perspective. Keep in mind what would be useful for someone who ...


1

You can use the same name for same kind of picture. But use specific name will help a little for SEO, but it also mean more work to do. Determined by yourself.


1

Unfortunately in this sort of situation there is nothing really that you can do to change the policy or settings. Based on your feedback in comments about removing the .pl from the file name and it worked it sounds like the suexec filter is checking filenames for the existence of perl script extensions (perl runs files with .pl file extensions) but for some ...


1

you can let your periods in file names without fear. If such file names would in general cause problems, so every file like http://www.example.com/mycrazyhotlinuxdistro.tar.gz wouldn't have a right to exist.


1

What keywords did you want the page optimised for in organic search? You can name a page you don't care about whatever you like. Your primary channel appears to be e-mails rather than search engines. Focus on user experience and associated metrics instead of SEO. If you wanted it to show up on a search for 'Your company landing page' then optimise around ...


1

To write a custom listing, you need to write a script, but PHP is not the only scripting language, and is not one of the more secure scripting languages. However, no matter what scripting language you choose, if you are not careful to write a secure script, then the script will be insecure (regardless of the language). If you merely want a textual list of ...


1

You definitely want the canonical to point to the URL where the content exists and is served, that is the point of the canonical. You also should consider the pros and cons of re writing the URL suffix via htaccess. If the rewrite is for SEO purposes then you should probably leave the page as HTML, even if the rest of the site is asp out other tech. Google ...


1

To answer your question, "Yes", Google will ignore the canonical tag. However, this isn't an ideal situation at all and will only cause you trouble in the long run. If you have no way to edit / remove the canonical tags, why not use one of the standard default file names (index, default, home) always and then you can maintain that file URL for online ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible