The question for this article is whether or not you should use "absolute url's" or "relative url's"? Not only that, this article researches whether or not Google ranks these methods differently. Absolute: You use the entire url pointing to the designated page. ex. www.yoursite.com/page/index.html Relative: You use an automatic path to the file ex. /page/index.html Relative gives a path that is "assumed". Your browser will automatically "assume" to put www.yoursite.com before the link. When researching these two methods, I used factors to consider:
Different popular search terms Top listings Top "Inbound Links" for pages within the site Relative/Absolute urls NOT images
So here's the results of this study:
The average results within the search terms had a ratio of: Absolute % / Relative % The average inbound links for each site I researched had a ratio of: Absolute % / Relative %
So it seems safe to say that Google doesn't necessarily rank "absolute/relative" paths differently. Google may recognize the fact that neither method is wrong, it only reflects the designers preference. There's only type of Absolute and Relative paths that get a bad rank. Web sites that use "tracking url's" or data base urls get a significant reduction in page rank emmediately. The easiest way to notice this in action is to go to www.pogo.com (Online games). You would think that pogo has a great rank but nope, in fact their main page rank is /. This happens because every time google crawls through their url, the site is different. So if you care about page rank, keep your url's the same as the day your site was born!
Leave a comment
Your email address will not be published. Email is optional. Required fields are marked *