Using Trailing Slash In Linking, Using Trailing slash in linking Options

[Jen C]

Lately I have been trading some links with fellow sites and have noticed alot of webmasters are strongly against us using a trailing slash in their reciprocal url:

http://www.somesite.com/

Is there a real difference, seo or otherwise to using a trailing slash in the url? Will using a trailing slash in the urls i use for my on page anchors make any difference to seo?

Any opinions on this would be great!

Regards,
Jen C

[chrishirst]

No real difference for SEO, but it does show the lack of knowledge on the part of these "webmasters" (using the term very loosely)

The trailing slash tells the server to use the default document list for that folder and load that page. Without it the server first looks for a matching document name, then a folder with that name and use default doc list, finally performing a redirect (302) to that document.

so using the trailing slash saves a certain amount of server load and aids the speed the document will load.

[Ron Carnell]

I agree with Chris, but unfortunately, we seem to be a minority.

I was appalled to hear Yahoo rep, Jon Glick, say they purposely strip the trailing slash off search results because "that's the way most surfers would type it." MSN chooses to not display the trailing slash in their SERPs, but nonetheless adds it when implementing their redirect. Only Google, of the big three, both displays the slash to visitors and uses it in linking.

My advice is to just nod sagely and quietly drop the trailing slash when asked. It doesn't help them in the least, but neither does it hurt you at all. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[lisphacker]

Webmaster's a loose term by definition chris; that's half the problem.

In terms of the trailing slash, I can only reply with this:

Trailing Slash Problem

Description:
   
Every webmaster can sing a song about the problem of the trailing slash on URLs referencing directories. If they are missing, the server dumps an error, because if you say /~quux/foo instead of /~quux/foo/ then the server searches for a file named foo. And because this file is a directory it complains. Actually is tries to fix it themself in most of the cases, but sometimes this mechanism need to be emulated by you. For instance after you have done a lot of complicated URL rewritings to CGI scripts etc.
Solution:

  The solution to this subtle problem is to let the server add the trailing slash automatically. To do this correctly we have to use an external redirect, so the browser correctly requests subsequent images etc. If we only did a internal rewrite, this would only work for the directory page, but would go wrong when any images are included into this page with relative URLs, because the browser would request an in-lined object. For instance, a request for image.gif in /~quux/foo/index.html would become /~quux/image.gif without the external redirect!

From here.

In other words, in strict terms, omitting the trailing slash will cause an error in Apache. Probably other web servers too.

[Drew-z]

Is there a real difference, seo or otherwise to using a trailing slash in the url? Will using a trailing slash in the urls i use for my on page anchors make any difference to seo?

Yes, it has for me, but probably not for the reasons you had in mind with the question originally. Also, i am referring to directory home pages and not necessarily your home page.

Think about if you needed to change your website extensions in the future for whatever reason. Say you used to be .shtml and migrated to .php for example.

If you segment your main categories by directory and then link to them using a slash (www.somesite.com/catagory1/) you can seamlessly update to a new extension without having to reindex a new page.

Since then i have noticed a few newspapers doing this and i would think that it may be for similar reasons? For example, Boston.com and their category pages.

[seodesign]

I just wanted to ditto the server stuff.

When talking to my programmer about coding the "trailing slash" came up and he said it is something you should always do because it cause less resources on the server. A little bit less, but less.

[Scottie]

Without the trailing slash, your stats will often report a redirected URL.

[Tom Philo]

If you use IE and type in a domain without the trailing /, hit enter, you will see it sometimes "magically" appear.

What has happenned is:

1) a round trip request went to the server and the / has been appended onto the URI thus wasting time, bandwidth and server processes per server rule
2) The browser itself saw this omission and put it onto the domain only URI the trailing / (I don't think this is true in IE)
3) the / appending varies by server being used as a host
4) If you type in an invalid domain URI without the / as a test you will see the not found domain error return and the domain name in the address bar with a trailing / appended onto it which is what the internet specs (I believe) state is what is supposed to happen
5) Magic just happens on the Internet


In NS 7.2 it always appears to append a trailing / onto any URI typed into the address bar when you do not have a full URL to a specific document

[Ron Carnell]

In NS 7.2 it always appears to append a trailing / onto any URI typed into the address bar when you do not have a full URL to a specific document

That's an assumption no browser should ever make. Adding a trailing slash clearly assumes the final object referenced is a directory, and that need not be the case. We may be used to pages always having an extension, but that is just a convention and NOT a requirement. And sometimes, especially in the SEO world, there are very good reasons to eliminate the extension.

I think changing an URL should only be the result of a redirect. I don't want my software trying to correct my mistakes (that's what a wife is for!).

[Tom Philo]

The main item to note is that if you have a URL to a end document: an .asp, .htm, .js, .txt etc file it does not append anything - since you are requestiing a true document to be retrieved. If you go to a Top Level domain, domain/directory, or any URI where you are not specifying a document, it appends the / onto it.

Putting in mydomain.com mydomain.com/dir into an address then it can append with no harm since by specs a document needs to have an extension to be referenced so it knows it is a directory target being requested and thus the server will hunt though its rules to find the default document (or allow a browse of the directory) be returned to the user.

Leaving off the trailing / is more about aestetics.

If the webmaster sets up a UNIX system to allow web files to be posted without having file extensions then it will cause problems - I would think the web program will crash since the server has NO idea how to encode, send, or to run run that file.

Creating a directory called myfile.htm on a web server would cause all sorts of problems since how is the system to know that it is a directory and not a file?

I think it is good that any URI that has no file extension be terminated with a trailing /

[lisphacker]

The main item to note is that if you have a URL to a end document: an  .asp, .htm, .js, .txt etc  file it does not append anything - since you are requestiing a true document to be retrieved. If you go to a Top Level domain, domain/directory, or any URI  where you are not specifying a document, it appends the / onto it.

Putting in mydomain.com mydomain.com/dir into an address then it can append with no harm since by specs a document needs to have an extension to be referenced so it knows it is a directory target being requested and thus the server will hunt though its rules to find the default document (or allow a browse of the directory) be returned to the user.

Leaving off the trailing / is more about aestetics.

If the webmaster sets up a UNIX system to allow web files to be posted without having file extensions then it will cause problems - I would think the web program will crash since the server has NO idea how to encode, send, or to run run that file.

Creating a directory called myfile.htm on a web server would cause all sorts of problems since how is the system to know that it is a directory and not a file?

I think it is good that any URI that has no file extension be terminated with a trailing /

OK, at this point I must interject.

Firstly, this stuff about apache crashing is non sense. I assume you mean apache by 'web program.' Any modern httpd implementation including and especially apache automatically redirects in the case where the referant is a directory. You know, cuz apache has ways of testing that.

Secondly, that stuff in your previous post about magic and whatnot is somewhat magical itself.

[Ron Carnell]

<Files articles>
SetHandler application/x-httpd-php
</Files>

Tom, the above block, in .htaccess or httpd.conf, tells Apache exactly how to handle a file called articles (no extension). It's a common method for (1) avoiding query strings, and (2) hiding implementation details.

If the user wants a directory and forgets the trailing slash, the web server will issue a redirect to the correct URI. That's it's job, and it can do it well because it knows what is on the disk. A browser doesn't know, can't do the job correctly, and in my opinion, really should be trying.

It's good to know, though, Tom. When users run into problems, now I'll be able to tell them who to blame. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Ron Carnell: Mar 29 2005, 05:22 PM

[Walrus]

Does this mean any link I have should preferably end with a "/". I use Dreamweaver and by default it never does this when using the link box in the property inspector. Not too much to worry about I guess but I have never even considered the "/" issue.

[Raphael]

Trailing slashes on the end of domain names just look neater too, IMO (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

http://www.mysite.com/

looks more complete than http://www.mysite.com

[Tom Philo]

Last time I used Apache was in 2000, things have changed since then.

I never said Apache crashed, I said that it would if it does not know how to handle that occurance, since you have to program it to handle it, and I see that that it does handle it by default per another post here, with that bit of code in its configuration settings it does know what to do with it so it does not crash. The same would be true for Windows systems (or any web server) if it did not know how to handle it.

Never knew the term was articles and that the web server had a special set of code in a config file to avoid that problem, thanks.

If the webmaster sets up a UNIX system to allow web files to be posted without having file extensions then it will cause problems - I would think the web program will crash since the server has NO idea how to encode, send, or to run run that file.

The magic just happens is a joke - we all know that anything that happens inside a computer is due to a programmer either writing or not writing code - a decision matrix - and everything we see is the result of that whole decision matrix of cellective programs that are supposed to work togther without any possible decision overlooked.