Which file extension is best? .htm or no extension?

[Cricketer]

Which is the best file extension to use when manipulating mysql/php urls in .htaccess

I was coming to the conclusion that it would be better to go with
http://www.mydomain.com/widget
but I'm wondering if http://www.mydomain.com/widget.htm would be prefered by the search spiders because it most definitely looks static.

I'm only looking from the perspective of the SE Spiders.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I usualy go with a full file extension this way most files end up one directory level higher and you get a more "organic" structure with directories that host multiple file instead of just a bunch of directories with only one file in each. It just looks more natural :)

[seomike]

Like Mikkel said go with extensions.

Cool thing is to make up your own extensions :) .seo, .xXx, .oOo or .lol It doesn't matter a file ext is not greater than another.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Yes, these ones all seems to work fine:

http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.mikkel
http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.c64
http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.google

All the above test pages has been indexed

[Cricketer]

If it's that random I can't imagine that it'll matter if you don't have any extension and just have a url such as
http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test

??

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

It is just an example of some obscure, homemade, extension names being indexed. I just linked them from the footer of that site to prove Google index any extension that return some valid text, code or objects they can understand.

The difference between having some extension and not is that if you don't it is not a file but a directory:

www.domain.com/name/ - is a directory
www.domain.com/name.html - is a file

It is absolutely most common having websites with many files in each directory instead of one directory per page and also considered a userfriendly scheme. If you want to mimic something - why not mimic what is most comon?

Also, by using the extension you move the content one level up from being in a directory level. I have often found that pages higher in directory levels get better indexed and are easier to rank - but not always.

[rogerd]

To Mikkel's good advice, I'd also add that humans may find a conventional-looking extension and URL the easiest to interpret. For example,

http://www.example.com/store/shirts/product123.htm

is quite transparent to most users, while

http://www.example.com/src/inv/123/

may go the the same content but is a lot harder for the user to parse.

[Cricketer]

I have decided, I think, to go with a .htm file extension however with my situation there is no reason why
http://www.example.com/store/shirts/product123.htm
couldn't be:
http://www.example.com/store/shirts/product123
both are meaningful.

[Chris Boggs]

Yes, these ones all seems to work fine:

http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.mikkel
http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.c64
http://www.seo-debat.dk/ext-test.google

All the above test pages has been indexed

I was curious to click on these links and find Pagerank. You must have linked these from other high PR pages...was the PR assigned in the first indexing? please comment by PM if you do not wish to share publicly...

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Chris, I haven't actually followed the PR on these URLs. I only added them to the footer of a local (I think PR5) site - the rest, that I know of, comes from forums like this where they have been used in discussions. Hey, if the topic gains enough interest mayby they WILL end up with a high PR! They allready rank pretty well for "test of file name extensions (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-21%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Test+of+file+name+extensions&btnG=Search)" :rolleyes:

... By the way, do you see the same AdWords add that I see on the above query?

test
test
test
test.com


Anyway, back to case.
I think this prooves that not only do strange extension names get indexed - they also rank well (if you let them ...)

[Chris Boggs]

no AdWords results for the query when i searched here (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-21%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Test+of+file+name+extensions&btnG=Search) or here (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-21%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22Test+of+file+name+extensions%22) (with parentheses)...all three links have a PR3 that I can see...