Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Do You Think Its Better To Have A Full Url To Links?


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 lister

lister

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:17 PM

I never used to do that full URL path to a file but now im thinking about it - reason is b/c I have quite deep directories and it is beginning to get a bit ridicolous with the ../../../../../../filename.html

Maybe its safer to do the full URL path and hence avoid any 404's?

My question is - does it make any difference?

i.e. - for an internal link

1. url="http://mysite/direct...y-4/index.html"

OR

2 url="../../../../../index.html"

THANKS

#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 6,833 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

The the document relative ../ syntax should be avoided wherever possible, such URLs are only "correct" from one point in the structure, as each ../ 'says' "the folder above the current one", but using absolute URLs is not necessary either.

What you should use are root relative URIs, where the reference is always the same no matter where the file/folder is in the site structure.

so site.tld/directory/directory/document.ext where the path starts at the first directory in the site root.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!