Which SEO-Friendly URL Structure is better ?

[hoangvu]

Hi all,

I have 2 structures about URLs like example.com/post-name/ and example.com/post-name.html
Can you suggest me Which SEO-Friendly URL Structure is better ? and why ?

Thank you

 

[MagnumDirectory]

The big difference between the two urls you provided is one of them takes the instance of a folder (/post-name/) while (post-name.html) is just a basic page. If you plan on having many pages within /post-name/ then use that. Using htaccess you can make it look even better with just /post-name without the trailing slash or the file extension.

/post-name/ has two main advantages, one you can have many links within it and two its shorter and easier to remember. However, post-name.html "could" become more powerful if using it in cases such as this:

Example 1:
/service/seo
/seo-service.html

If you are using:
/seo-service/
/seo-service.html

There probably won't be that big of a difference as compared to the example 1. Personally, I prefer having pages without file extension.

 

[InFeRnO]

InFeRnO

I agree with MagnumDirectory, I'm also using pages without extensions

 

[Jack London]

Hi all,

I have 2 structures about URLs like example.com/post-name/ and example.com/post-name.html
Can you suggest me Which SEO-Friendly URL Structure is better ? and why ?

Thank you

According to me, if you use url struction for directory ( category ) you should use this example.com/category-name/ and for your post .html may be better, should be example.com/post-name.html

Just my ideas

 

[SEO Land]

URL Structre should be clean and make it clear as domain.com/category/post.html