2

I've been reading up on SEO and heard that paths should include full URLs: http://www.etc Does this apply for image sources and video content as well? Or does it make a difference if say a video on my page is loaded via "/images/ex.mov" Does this affect load time at all either way?

Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
  • 104,111
  • 38
  • 209
  • 254
Gazow
  • 1,019
  • 2
  • 11
  • 16

2 Answers2

0

It depends whether you want an absolute path or relative path.

When loading files(such as images) from another site, you should use full, absolute urls (including http://).

Example: You want to load file http://www.example.com/images/img1.gif from http://www.example.com/page.html, you could use the path "/images/img1.gif".

however, if you want to load http://www.etc.com/images/img1.gif from http://www.example.com/page.html, you have to specify full url ("http://www.etc.com/images/img1.gif").

tcooc
  • 20,629
  • 3
  • 39
  • 57
  • yeah i know why i would have to use it in that case, what im asking is does it matter for load time and seo if i use full path or abreviated for files on the same site – Gazow Jun 19 '10 at 08:12
  • No, since the relative paths are automatically converted into full paths. However, using the short form saves you a few bytes of data, since you dont have to type in the entire url. – tcooc Jun 19 '10 at 16:56
0

Seo doesnt matter if you use full or relative, as long as they point to the correct destination

The only way it affects load times would be that the user has to download the bytes that the absolute url provides as extra characters.

Shean Hoxie
  • 76
  • 1
  • 4