Re: RE: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
- 1 Messages
- Collapse All
- Expand All
- Subscribe
Oct 15
Featherweightstf Re: RE: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 06:48
Featherweightstf
Re: RE: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
-----It appears that maryjo@btinet.net (Mary Jo Sinner) wrote, on
20021014 8:32 AM:
>It may actually be easier to do it the other way around: have your server
>admin set up the .shtml extension to be read as .htm or .html. That's what
>we did, and I continue to name all my pages .htm even when using includes.
>It's a LOT easier!
Mary Jo's suggestion may have more than a convenience advantage. I read
in a short piece on improving search engine ratings that some engines
don't pay attention to files that end in ".shtml" . . .
Can anyone confirm this?
TIA,
Dan Feather
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=- Dan at featherweightstuff dot com -=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:dreamweaver-admin@blueworld.com>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:dreamweaver-off@blueworld.com>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/dreamweavertalk.lasso>
20021014 8:32 AM:
>It may actually be easier to do it the other way around: have your server
>admin set up the .shtml extension to be read as .htm or .html. That's what
>we did, and I continue to name all my pages .htm even when using includes.
>It's a LOT easier!
Mary Jo's suggestion may have more than a convenience advantage. I read
in a short piece on improving search engine ratings that some engines
don't pay attention to files that end in ".shtml" . . .
Can anyone confirm this?
TIA,
Dan Feather
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=- Dan at featherweightstuff dot com -=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List Administrator: <mailto:dreamweaver-admin@blueworld.com>
To Unsubscribe: <mailto:dreamweaver-off@blueworld.com>
Archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/dreamweavertalk.lasso>
Oct 15
Tom Irish Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 11:39
Tom Irish
Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15
Suzanne Stephens Re: RE: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 11:07
Suzanne Stephens
Re: RE: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15
Suzanne Stephens Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 12:29
Suzanne Stephens
Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15
Stephanie Sullivan Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 12:16
Stephanie Sullivan
Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15
Steve Maxey Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 15, 2002; 23:30
Steve Maxey
Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 16
Patrick Hackshaw Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Oct 16, 2002; 07:57
Patrick Hackshaw
Re: Shtml files that aren't "s" -- Better for Search Engines?
Search
Lasso Programming
This site manages and broadcasts several email lists pertaining to Lasso Programming and technologies related and used by Lasso developers. Sign up today!