Tons of questions from the UK. J, from London, asks, "Does stripping file extensions from URLs--," so instead of page.html, just having page "--have a demonstrable benefit in the SERPs?" I don't really think it does. And personally, I would not do that. People like to know that it's an HTML page that they're hitting. If you have a directory, then sure, have the directory. But personally, if you don't have ".html" or if you're--then if your web server's not configured correctly, we're making guesses about is that a PDF or is that a ".exe" or is it a CFM, and you know, all the different types, mime types that there are trying to figure out what type of content it is. So if possible, I would probably just stick with this standard convention, have something HTM or HTML. Users understand that. They don't get confused. They won't be quite as cautious about clicking on a result. So, you know, it doesn't make that much difference in core ranking, but I think behaviorally and, you know, not making something that's a rough edge that people--they get stuck on or worry about. I would probably stick with having the extension, having ".html" or something like that.
Learn more about how Cultured Digital approaches SEO.
We've been doing this since 2001 and have helped 100s of companies around the world. Cultured Digital is a Sunderland SEO company, we'll be more than happy to put you in touch with current and past clients to talk about how we've helped them grow.Get in touch