canonicalize folder links?

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

canonicalize folder links?

mihomes

12:12 am on Jan 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Okay, I guess my question is the following... when creating your site link structure is it better for :

www.mysite.com/thisfolder/

www.mysite.com/thisfolder/index.htm (or whatever index)

I've read up on canonicalization and was wondering if this only pertained to the domain name itself (ie. without the index just www.mysite.com/ ) or folders within that site as well?

Do search engines really see the two as different and would invoke dupe content?

bill

10:58 am on Jan 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Many recommend the cruft-free URI approach for future compatibility and flexibility of the site's technology. Your first example would let you maintain your link structure regardless of whether to decide to use HTML, PHP, or any other technology to power your site.

mihomes

12:11 am on Jan 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Bill,

I was more concerned if there is any SEO regarding this. I know that GoogleGuy has recommended this type of linking for domains - does it apply for folders as well?

bill

3:50 am on Jan 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

In some respects, yes. As we all know, Cool URIs don't change [w3.org]. The longer your page and link addresses stay in place the better. This keeps links from breaking and would certainly affect rankings in SEs that consider links a determiner of page value.

g1smd

12:04 pm on Jan 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Always OMIT the index file filename. This allows a change of technology without having to change any URLs (e.g. from index.html to index.php).

Use just www.domain.com/folder/ for links.

Make sure that www.domain.com/folder always issues a 301 redirect to www.domain.com/folder/

mihomes

3:41 am on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Make sure that www.domain.com/folder always issues a 301 redirect to www.domain.com/folder/

What would be the correct 301 code for that so it works for all levels?