Full path links in second level pages

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

--
Brad Blanchard
Website http://www.braser.com/
Email accepted from the website

GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the other?
No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.

Use the latter.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...

GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.
Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...lle-daosta.php

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.

Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Hmm.. how to explain this to you...

Try it yourself.
Type 10 links in your page full path. Use a stopwatch to see how long
it takes you. Then type 10 links with just ../ before the filename.
Time that too. Which of the two took you the longest?

Besides that, if you'd ever want to (temporarily) move an entire
directory with subdirectories to another place in the site (for
instance from https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/ to
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/ ) you won't have to change any
links inside that directory if you used relative links.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Hawkwind - Silver Machine (live)

"Els" <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:x77p33vtvjox$.dlg (AT) locusmeus (DOT) com...

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.

Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Hmm.. how to explain this to you...

Try it yourself.
Type 10 links in your page full path. Use a stopwatch to see how long
it takes you. Then type 10 links with just ../ before the filename.
Time that too. Which of the two took you the longest?

You just copy the part which is before the name of the file itself.

Besides that, if you'd ever want to (temporarily) move an entire
directory with subdirectories to another place in the site (for
instance from https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/ to
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/ ) you won't have to change any
links inside that directory if you used relative links.

If you use a file called let´s say foo.html
which you include using php
<?php include "foo.html"; ?>
you just have to modify the links in that file.


--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...lle-daosta.php

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll (AT) telia (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing
something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the
other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.
Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Ok (I am not going to explain the obvious today): how about: it saves some
bandwidth.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A90D353E19castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll (AT) telia (DOT) com> wrote:


"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing
something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the
other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.
Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Ok (I am not going to explain the obvious today): how about: it saves some
bandwidth.

But, on the other side, if I have to copy a link to let´s say the page C and
I already have this link on the page A and now I want to have the same link
to C from the page B, the latter does not work...


--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...lle-daosta.php

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:14:15 +0100, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com>
wrote:

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.
Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Ok (I am not going to explain the obvious today): how about: it saves
some bandwidth.

Don't bother with explanations, Luigi is even more stubborn then you

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&...-stoichiometry
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

"Els" <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> skrev i meddelandet
news:x77p33vtvjox$.dlg (AT) locusmeus (DOT) com...
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns972A87179336Ccastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
GB Blanchard <1122 (AT) 1122noexiste (DOT) net> wrote:

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I just realised I may be doing something
wrong on my sites.

With SEO in mind, should links in subdirectories be full-path:

http://www.example.com/example.html

or relative:

../example.html

Does it matter to your visitor? No. Gives one more info then the other?

No. Does using the latter make *your* work easier: yes.

Why should the latter make "my" work easier???

Hmm.. how to explain this to you...

Try it yourself.
Type 10 links in your page full path. Use a stopwatch to see how long
it takes you. Then type 10 links with just ../ before the filename.
Time that too. Which of the two took you the longest?

You just copy the part which is before the name of the file itself.

Besides that, if you'd ever want to (temporarily) move an entire
directory with subdirectories to another place in the site (for
instance from https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/ to
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/ ) you won't have to change any
links inside that directory if you used relative links.

If you use a file called let´s say foo.html
which you include using php
?php include "foo.html"; ?
you just have to modify the links in that file.

Of course. But with relative links, you don't. (depending on from
where to where you move a directory of course)

Besides, not all links are in an include. Maybe on your site they are,
but I have many links inside the text - I only include the navigation
bar.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Magnum - Walking The Straight Line

"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll (AT) telia (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> skrev i meddelandet

[ ../example.html ]

Ok (I am not going to explain the obvious today): how about: it saves
some bandwidth.

But, on the other side, if I have to copy a link to let´s say the page
C and I already have this link on the page A and now I want to have
the same link to C from the page B, the latter does not work...

I have no idea what you mean. Like someone else said, if you use
/example.com, and /example.com is at the top level, it will work from any
depth, since / means top.

If you have a subdirectory, say, foo, and you use

/foo/example.com

It works from all levels.

If you use:

.../foo/example.com

or

foo/example.com

it might or might not work, depending on the level.

I don't have this problem, since allmost all my pages are generated by a
script, which does some work to find out the shortest version :-D.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/