31

There are several reasons to remove extensions from URLs: To make the URLs look cleaner To make URLs easier to type To make URLs easier to remember To make URLs more SEO keyword friendly To be able to change technologies -- if you ever want to move your site from one technology to the other, its easiest to do so without users even knowing if there are no ...


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 ...


6

Keep the filename including its file extension below 255 characters. Just to be safe. The actual length doesn't really matter. Personally I have never seen a penalty coming from a too long filename. Just don't keyword stuff it! Take into account that some characters have different encodings (such as ä, ö, ü, é, etc.) making your filename actually longer. A ...


6

All web servers have one or more "default files". It's the file that will be displayed whenever a visitor goes to a URL that ends in a slash /, i.e. a folder. If the default file name on your web server is index.php and a visitor goes to www.example.com/pagename/, they are actually accessing www.example.com/pagename/index.php. If there is no trailing /, ...


4

There are several ways to serve files without an extension. One of the easiest is to use the Multiviews option in your .htaccess. That option allows the /webpage.html document to be accessed through the /webpage URI. Then you can use a rewrite rule to make sure that the version with .html gets redirected to the version without the extension. Here is ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


3

It has been verified that a PHP file can be used as a sitemap file such as sitemap.php I checked http://sitemaps.org (the website with the specification information for sitemaps) and there is no mention that the file must be saved in the .XML format. I will have to say that yes, it will work, as long as Google does not have a problem with the extension for ...


3

It is not a good idea from an SEO point of view to serve different content via Javascript since a web-crawler is likely to either see an empty page or always the default content. In either case, your content will not get fully indexed. Serving different content via PHP is doable and some entire sites are served by only a single file. Those sites usually ...


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

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....


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

Two solutions which don't require filename changing but give a different file path: Create different domains which forward to the same directory, where the site then detects language and servers correct paths/site content. e.g. website.es would pull content from website.com so website.com/picture.jpg becomes website.es/picture.jpg Similarly use subdomains ...


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

What we know about Google is that they use a system of indicators that tells the search engines what the content is about, there is a limit to how many indicators you can have and after that its ignored upto the point if over used it goes against you in negative SEO. So the path is one of many indicators removing SEF (Search Engine Friendly) urls will not ...


2

No, a filename's location relative to the root does not affect SEO, and it certainly doesn't warrant adding 301 redirects to restructure your site for. As this article discusses, URLs should be easy for humans and search engines to understand. When a URL appears in a search engine snippet, if it's clear to search engine users what the link is to and how it ...


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

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

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 ...


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

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

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

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 ...


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