"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns964860BD63573castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Eric Johnston wrote:
>
>> url only and if this can't be done then make sure such pages actually
>> exist, even if the lower priority one of them just says "click here to
>> go to the proper home page".
>
> Noooo.... 301 redirect.
>
>> Your server will send out a page if you
>> ask for http://www.clara.co.uk/ The actual page file name sent out
>> will depend on an arbitary list of filenames, in priority order,
>> hidden in the server config file. e.g. index.html, index.htm,
>> default.htm, default.html etc
>
> I also recommend not to link to absolute URLs if relative ones are
> possible, e.g. use ../../ instead of http://example.com/.
>
> --
> John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
> Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
> Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
John
I have just done a total site update for someone and on every page, I've put
<base href="http://www.***.net/"> in the <head>.
I've used
http://www.***.net/ for links to the home page and
used relative links like just the filename yyyy.htm for links to all the
other pages.
Is this OK ?
Using relative links helped reduce page length, particularly on one page
where I put 30 links.
Prior to this, on my own site, I have always used full absolute links,
thinking it might reduce errors when people try to run my pages from copies
they have made on their own hard disks. It worries me to think that a page
may get run in isolation and not work correctly.
Best regards, Eric.