__/ [ Hymer ] on Sunday 26 March 2006 15:54 \__
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e05nl0$tuh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> __/ [ Gido_ ] on Sunday 26 March 2006 06:19 \__
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/3b893afaf5e84336/d33260d676d242dd?lnk=st&q=relative+vs.+absolute+URL+seo&rnum=3&hl=en#d33260d676d242dd
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/cd8c58e84969ee19/05c7da7ecae96323?lnk=st&q=relative+vs.+absolute+URL+seo&rnum=2&hl=en#05c7da7ecae96323
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/8857e9c65b258896/6c9f96e798fb137a?lnk=st&q=relative+vs.+absolute+URL+seo&rnum=1&hl=en#6c9f96e798fb137a
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 ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:05pm up 18 days 7:50, 9 users, load average: 0.16, 0.44, 0.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
