Hi
I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
and
products.htm
The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
do I need to change the html back to htm page file
names


Regards
Ian

Ian Harris wrote:

> Hi
> I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
> and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
> The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
> and
> products.htm
> The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
> do I need to change the html back to htm page file
> names
>
> Regards
> Ian

I suspect that you are being a paranoid here. Search engines couldn't care
less about the /extension/ as long as the file complies with the proper
/format/.

Your explanation was not clear to me. I don't understand what you mean by
"update" and "previous site", which imply different things. If you change
the extension of an existing file in an existing (static) domain, then you
can lead visitors to 404 error pages. If you have migrated your site to a
new domain, however, there should be no problem.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:17:53 +0100, "Ian Harris"
<websolutions@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi
>I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
>and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
>The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
>and
>products.htm
>The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
>do I need to change the html back to htm page file
>names
>
>
>Regards
>Ian
>

Yup.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

"Ian Harris" <websolutions@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42733f2b$0$328$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
> Hi
> I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
> and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
> The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
> and products.htm
> The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
> do I need to change the html back to htm page file names
>
> Regards
> Ian

By changing the file names you are giving the search engines a whole new
learning job to do, so expect a temporary setback, particularly in respect
of searches that might have displayed old deep pages in the results.
Eventually you may recover - much will depend on the quality of content of
the new pages, compared with the old. If the new pages are really good you
may find them listed high for while to see if people like them.

If you have incoming links direct to certain individual pages try
particularly to have those page names, and their relevent content, retained.

Avoid mention of either index.htm and index.html anywhere on your site pages
and use instead links to the url alone, like http://www.clara.co.uk/ If
you already have incoming links to index.htm or index.html try to get the
originators to simplify to the 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". 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
Best regards, Eric.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:17:53 +0100, "Ian Harris"
<websolutions@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi
>I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
>and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
>The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
>and
>products.htm
>The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
>do I need to change the html back to htm page file
>names
>
>
>Regards
>Ian
>

It's not a good idea to do the above because it will result in the
engines having to start again with your site. You've basically deleted
your old site and uploaded a new one with different filenames!

If you must change filenames/extensions use 301 redirects from the old
name to the new. It's not guaranteed to work, but much better than
relying on the engines to re rank your site the same as before!

David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/

Hi Guys
Many thanks for the advice
hopefully one day I will be able to help people in these newsgroup as well
instead of being a newbie

Regards
Ian
"Eric Johnston" <nospam@redyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SHKce.9843$z%5.3071@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>
> "Ian Harris" <websolutions@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42733f2b$0$328$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com.. .
>> Hi
>> I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
>> and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
>> The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
>> and products.htm
>> The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
>> do I need to change the html back to htm page file names
>>
>> Regards
>> Ian
>
> By changing the file names you are giving the search engines a whole new
> learning job to do, so expect a temporary setback, particularly in respect
> of searches that might have displayed old deep pages in the results.
> Eventually you may recover - much will depend on the quality of content of
> the new pages, compared with the old. If the new pages are really good you
> may find them listed high for while to see if people like them.
>
> If you have incoming links direct to certain individual pages try
> particularly to have those page names, and their relevent content,
> retained.
>
> Avoid mention of either index.htm and index.html anywhere on your site
> pages and use instead links to the url alone, like http://www.clara.co.uk/
> If you already have incoming links to index.htm or index.html try to get
> the originators to simplify to the 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". 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
> Best regards, Eric.
>

well, you want visits (by humans or search engines) to old files, to
still find valid concent. You can accomplish that by doing redirects,
or by keeping old file names.

I am redoing my site, moving stuff, and take great pains to make sure
that old links are properly redirected. I get thousands of google
visits per day.

i

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:17:53 +0100, Ian Harris <websolutions@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi
> I have updated a site that is already listed in the search engines .
> and gets high ranking but this is based on .htm pages
> The problem is the prevoius site, had page file names like this index.htm
> and
> products.htm
> The new site has page file names like this index.html and products.html .
> do I need to change the html back to htm page file
> names
>
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
>


--

"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.

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...
--