Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How important is the file extension in the URL for images?
-
I know that descriptive image file names are important for SEO. But how important is it to include .png, .jpg, .gif (or whatever file extension) in the url path? i.e. https://example.com/images/golden-retriever vs. https://example.com/images/golden-retriever.jpg
Furthermore, since you can set the filename in the Content-Disposition response header, is there any need to include the descriptive filename in the URL path?
Since I'm pulling most of our images from a database, it'd be much simpler to not care about simulating a filename, and just reference an image id in my templates.
Example:
1. Browser requests GET /images/123456
2. Server responds with image setting both Content-Disposition, and Link (canonical) headersContent-Disposition: inline; filename="golden-retriever"
Link: <https: 123456="" example.com="" images="">; rel="canonical"</https:> -
In theory, there should be no difference - the canonical header should mean that Google treats the inclusion of /images/123456 as exactly the same as including /images/golden-retriever.
It is slightly messier so I think that if it was easy, I'd go down the route of only ever using the /golden-retriever version - but if that's difficult, this is theoretically the same so should be fine.
-
@Will Thank you so much for this response. Very helpful.
"If you can't always refer to the image by its keyword-rich filename"...
If I'm already including the canonical link header on the image, and am able to serve from both /images/123456 and /images/golden-retriever (canonical), is there any benefit to referencing the canonical over the other in my image tags?
-
Hi James. I've responded with what I believe is a correct answer to MarathonRunner's question. There are a few inaccuracies in your responses to this thread - as pointed out by others below - please can you target your future responses to areas where you are confident that you are correct and helpful? Many thanks.
-
@MarathonRunner - you are correct in your inline responses - it's totally valid to serve an image (or other filetype) without an extension, with its type identified by the Content-Type. Sorry that you've had a less-than-helpful experience here so far.
To answer your original questions:
- From an SEO perspective, there is no need that I know of for your images to have a file extension - the content type should be fine
- However - I have no reason to think that a filename in the Content-Disposition header will be recognised as a ranking signal - what you are describing is a rare use-case and I haven't seen any evidence that it would be recognised by the search engines as being the "real" filename
If you can't always refer to the image by its keyword-rich filename, then could you:
- Serve it as you propose (though without the Content-Disposition filename)
- Serve a rel="canonical" link to a keyword-rich filename (https://example.com/images/golden-retriever in your example)
- Also serve the image on that URL
This only helps if you are able to serve the image on the /images/golden-retriever path, but need to have it available at /images/123456 for inclusion in your own HTML templates.
I hope that helps.
-
If you really did your research you would have noticed the header image is not using an extension.
-
Again, you're mistaken. The Content-Type response header tells the browser what type of file the resource is (mime type). This is _completely different _from the file extension in URL paths.
In fact, on the web all the file extensions are faked through the URL path. For example, this page's URL path is:
https://a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/community/q/how-important-is-the-file-extension-in-the-url-for-images
It's not
https://a-moz.groupbuyseo.org/community/q/how-important-is-the-file-extension-in-the-url-for-images.html
How does the browser know the the page is an html doc? Because of the Content-Type response header. The faked "extension" in the URL path, is unnecessary.
You can view http response headers for any URL using this tool.
-
-
Do you need a new keyboard?
-
@James Wolff: I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic here. As it's totally fine to serve it without the extension. There are many more ways for a crawler to understand what type a file is. Including what @MarathonRunner is talking about here.
-
This isn't accurate. File extension (in the url path) is not the same as the **Content-Type **response header. Browsers respect the response header Content-Type over whatever extension I use in the path.
Example: try serving a file /golden-retriever.png with a content type of image/jpeg. Your browser will understand the file as a .jpg. If you attempt to save, your browser will correct to golden-retriever.jpg.
You can route URLs however you want.
Additionally, I'm not aware of any way browsers "leverage cache by content type". Browsers handle cache by the etag/expires header.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Are these URL hashtags an SEO issue?
Hi guys - I'm looking at a website which uses hashtags to reveal the relevant content So there's page intro text which stays the same... then you can click a button and the text below that changes So this is www.blablabla.com/packages is the main page - and www.blablabla.com/packages#firstpackage reveals first package text on this page - www.blablabla.com/packages#secondpackage reveals second package text on this same page - and so on. What's the best way to deal with this? My understanding is the URLs after # will not be indexed very easily/atall by Google - what is best practice in this situation?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag... Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
Canonical URL & sitemap URL mismatch
Hi We're running a Magento store which doesn't have too much stock rotation. We've implemented a plugin that will allow us to give products custom canonical URLs (basically including the category slug, which is not possible through vanilla Magento). The sitemap feature doesn't pick up on these URLs, so we're submitting URLs to Google that are available and will serve content, but actually point to a longer URL via a canonical meta tag. The content is available at each URL and is near identical (all apart from the breadcrumbs) All instances of the page point to the same canonical URL We are using the longer URL in our internal architecture/link building to show this preference My questions are; Will this harm our visibility? Aside from editing the sitemap, are there any other signals we could give Google? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Number of images on Google?
Hello here, In the past I was able to find out pretty easily how many images from my website are indexed by Google and inside the Google image search index. But as today looks like Google is not giving you any numbers, it just lists the indexed images. I use the advanced image search, by defining my domain name for the "site or domain" field: http://www.google.com/advanced_image_search and then Google returns all the images coming from my website. Is there any way to know the actual number of images indexed? Any ideas are very welcome! Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau1 -
301 Redirection and apostrophes in URLs
Hi I am experiencing trouble getting any redirects with apostrophes in the URLs to 301 redirect in order to eliminate 404 errors. I have tried replacing the instance of the apostrophe in the source URL field to %27 and variations of this but to no avail. The site is a wordpress site (the old URLS are legacies from the old Business Catalyst site) and I am using the redirection plug in. I have gone into some detail with a helpful soul here http://wordpress.org/support/topic/how-to-deal-with-apostrophes-in-source-url but unfortunately to no result. If anyone has any idea how to solve this puzzle I would be grateful for the help. Example: http://www.tesselaars.com/blog/Inside_Flowers/post/Online_Marketing_for_Florists_Part_1%E2%80%93_A_Website_You_Won%27t_Regret/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Seamoose0 -
Where to put a page ID in a URL?
Hello, My company is going to change URLs to example.com/category or example.com/product. When we will change the URLs to product or category pages somehow we have to check whether the requested page is from category table in DB or from products table (this gives much speed to page load time). So we have to choose how to make the different product and category pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | komeksimas
Programmers said that we need to insert id to URL. So the question is: Which is the better way to place an id to an URL? example.com/product-name?id=111 example.com/product-name/111 example.com/product_name-111 Or maybe we should use some other punctuation mark to separate id from product name? p.s. I have read Dynamic URLs vs. static URLs by Google and it still didn't answered which is the best for all of the pages. Somehow others solve this problem by typing only the names to the URL, but could anyone tell what that technology should be?0 -
Image Maps
Hey forum, I'm curious about Image Maps. Few things I'm not sure about: 1. Will the links be followed? If so, will Google respect rel="nofollow"? 2. Will the image be considered 1 image? (indexed as image, etc.) Or will each map segment be treated as a separate image? 3. Any other SEO pros\cons to consider when adding an image map to an existing page? Thanks, Corwin.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | corwin0 -
Hosting images on multiple domains
I'm taking the following from http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html "Splitting components allows you to maximize parallel downloads. Make sure you're using not more than 2-4 domains because of the DNS lookup penalty. For example, you can host your HTML and dynamic content on www.example.org and split static components between static1.example.org and static2.example.org" What I want to do is load page images (it's an eCommerce site) from multiple sub domains to reduce load times. I'm assuming that this is perfectly OK to do - I cannot think of any reason that this wouldn't be a good tactic to go with. Does anyone know of (or can think of) a reason why taking this approach could be in any way detrimental. Cheers mozzers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eventurerob0
