__/ [ Gido_ ] on Sunday 26 March 2006 06:19 \__
> "Hymer" <ergobob@sonic[REMOVE].net> wrote in message
>> I am not sure if I have the terminology correct, but was there a
>> 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
>> 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).
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ 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