On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:37:15 GMT, "Eric Johnston"
<nospam@redyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"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.
I would expect relative to still work on someone's drive as, you know,
it'd still be the same relationship internally.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--