Why isn't SEOMoz using File Extensions (*.html etc) on any of their web page URLs?

[magicrob]

...and what is the SEO benefit of this? This video from Matt Cutts suggests using file extentions, except for a directory.

[G-Force]

Hey,

I don't think there is any SEO benefits and the video your are referring to is somehow outdated and ironic as Matt Cutts doesn't display any file extension on his blog neither.

On a usability stand point, it is better for users if the URL doesn't have any extension so they doesn't have to remember if the URL was ending with either .htm, .html, .php, .aspx, .asp, .jsp, etc.

The shorter, the better. A shorter URL will be easier to share (ex: on twitter), tell on the phone, quicker to type, look better in SERPs, etc.

Best regards,
Guillaume Voyer.

[sly-grrr]

Maybe, "Don't do as we do, do as we say."

SEOmoz has gone through stratospheric growth and not every aspect of their site is up to the best industry standards at this given moment in time. I do not work for SEOmoz but I pretend to know what is going on from time to time.

[besartbajrami]

The only seo benefit is that the can change the site programming technology for example from php move to asp or perl or another language without changing the url structure.

Consider this:

If they have url.php and after 1 year they decide to move to asp language then all url.php should be redirected to url.asp.

I think this is the reason, maybe they have a different!