SEO: .html vs no extension

[Torch]

I started doing SEO for my websites, so I was wondering which is better: .html extension (www.domain.com/page-1.html) or no extension (www.domain.com/page-1)...

I've already done SEO for paid sites before (who specified what they want), but never for my own ones so I never really researched that much.

If someone got some input on this, eg. which method gets indexed better/faster, I'd really appreciate it

[dharmil]

when you do it with out extenson like.html you get more things from search engins or some thing like that

[trinsic]

HTML and no extension wont give much difference. Its more the pages that are 'live' eg. PHP pages which have cache's, ids etc in the url. (showthread.php?t=17539) If it was showthread-17539.html or without the html then it would index better.

[Torch]

HTML and no extension wont give much difference. Its more the pages that are 'live' eg. PHP pages which have cache's, ids etc in the url. (showthread.php?t=17539) If it was showthread-17539.html or without the html then it would index better.

Uh, that is what SEO is, that's what I'm doing.

But my questions is does it really matter for Google (Yahoo or any other) if I use .html on end of URLs or no extension. Because I've heard that .htm and .html get indexed faster than other extensions, because spiders tend to first follow static pages.

BTW, no offense to anyone, but if you don't know exactly what I'm asking, please don't post

[dharmil]

my bad i thought i knew

[oab]

The page extension does not matter one bit... so i would just leave it as .html