HTML url extension

[PlusPort]

I've read some information about the extension of an url. But i couldn't find a clear answer.

What is better for SEO, an extension with html or without?

/make-money-online/how-to-make-a-million-dollars-in-1-year/

or

/make-money-online/how-to-make-a-million-dollars-in-1-year.html/

Is there a difference between a normal website or a blog?

[Alex-Harford]

Without - it's more user-friendly and if you ever change the coding behind the website the URLs will remain the same. It doesn't matter whether it's a 'normal' website or a blog, without is the way.

[IKT]

I would go with .html and drop the end "/"

so /make-money-online/how-to-make-a-million-dollars-in-1-year.html

I dont have a point to prove this, but google like static content more then dynamic content, a plain html files (in my humble opinion and faulted research) always ranked better then the one generated by xxx.php?whatever=1&A=2

... my 2 cents

[StevenMapes]

T.B.H file extension do not matter these days, they work as a hint on the type of document / content being served, but search engines will go by the actual file headers determine what it really is.

You could have all of your files being served up as .hello and it really wouldn't matter that much.

Just be consistent and you certainly don't want to use an extension followed by a / as that just looks confusing to the users.

Personally I'd suggest using an extension purely due to backward compatibility especially if you are looking at using mobile devices, and in particular support for older mobile devices, as they can be very picky as to the naming convention of files.

[KeriMorgret]

Agreed. You can change technology without changing URLs or having to do rewrites, which is a big benefit. Another benefit is that your URLs are shorter by four characters, making them a little easier to share.