: Using ending .html for URL re-write? For re-writing URLs to generate SEO friendly pretty URLs, it was usually recommended to use the ending extension (normally .html), as without the extension,

@Ogunnowo487

I don't think you should mix up term such as "folder" and "file" with web addresses (URIs to be more correct). In other words, web pages ending width .html are not (necessarily) files and ending without them are (most likely) not folders.

Also you could have addresses ending with .php, .jsp, .aspx or .mycustomextension. It doesn't matter to the visitor of your website.

As such I personally find any extension part redundant and obfuscating the actual meaning of the particular URI.

On the other hand a URI can represent a physical file on a web server. In such case .html is there for a reason. For dynamic pages extensionless URIs are more user (and SEO I think) friendly.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Angela700

The only benefit to keep it is for consistency (you have an large number of existing URLs that you don't want to have to add an unnecessary 301 redirect to).

The only reason to remove it is for flexibility - e.g. What happens if you want to move your site to .aspx, or .php, or .shtml?

There's NO SEO benefit to removing the filetype extension. It does make URLs (slightly) shorter, and less imposing to web n00bs, but that's about it.

Vote Up Vote Down