Which linking is better for SEO

[Greenguy]

I was always told that it was bad because it forces the browser to leave the server, look up the domain & then come back to the server, causing speed issues & a general waste of time.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

I was always told that it was bad because it forces the browser to leave the server, look up the domain & then come back to the server, causing speed issues & a general waste of time.

Oddly enough, I think the theory (if I dare call it that) that I had read stated something like someone had thought it was easier or faster for the server if the full address was spelled out for it. The server wouldn't have to stop, scratch its head, and figure out where it needed to go to get the page. But that browser thingy makes sense to me to.

That's it. I'm confused.

[Useless]

Chris has the most posts of anyone with a zero post count - EVER!

[Halfdeck]

If it's an internal link for navigation, i link to "/dir/." If it's a link to domain root, I use "http://www.domain.com/."

[twthumb]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

I was always told that it was bad because it forces the browser to leave the server, look up the domain & then come back to the server, causing speed issues & a general waste of time.

Most browser/os/routers/modems have a dns cache today, this means they lookup the ip address of the domainname ones and than save the ip / domainname combination in a cache, this cache is than used for further lookups.

You can clear your cache by doing a "ipconfig /flushdns".

Personally i use relative links whenever i can, it makes moving a site to another domainname (or even another directory) much easier. For example a freesite can be moved without any changes to another domainname.