How can I get an XML sitemap in the order that I want?
-
I use Screaming Frog and Xenu on a daily basis and I use them for sitemap creation, but the functionality is limited. With huge sites, it's really easy to create an ordered list of URLs for the sitemap in excel or word and upload that to Screaming Frog to crawl. The only problem is that it won't export the sitemap in the order that I uploaded it. Does anybody know of a tool that will do this or am I doomed to sit an manually arrange the URLs the way I want?
-
Pleasure, glad it helped!
-
Thanks Marcus! I've done some research on it and had some people say to keep the most important URLs at the top and least important at the bottom, but now I"m seeing alot more people say that order doesn't matter. Which is great, cuz as you said, that would not be a fun Friday afternoon.
-
Hey Michael
I guess the obvious question here is why do you care about the order? I have never seen anything over on http://www.sitemaps.org that indicated that the order was of any importance and in fact, if you check the FAQ they have this statement.
Q: <a id="faq_url_position" name="faq_url_position"></a>Does position of a URL in a Sitemap influence its use?
No. The position of a URL in the Sitemap is not likely to impact how it is used or regarded by search engines.
So, I would not stress, make sure everything else is right and forget about the order as that seems like a really horrid cut and paste job for a Friday afternoon.
Hope this helps
Marcus
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
Can anyone help me diagnose an indexing/sitemap issue on a large e-commerce site?
Hey guys. Wondering if someone can help diagnose a problem for me. Here's our site: https://www.flagandbanner.com/ We have a fairly large e-commerce site--roughly 23,000 urls according to crawls using both Moz and Screaming Frog. I have created an XML sitemap (using SF) and uploading to Webmaster Tools. WMT is only showing about 2,500 urls indexed. Further, WMT is showing that Google is indexing only about 1/2 (approx. 11,000) of the urls. Finally (to add even more confusion), when doing a site search on Google (site:) it's only showing about 5,400 urls found. The numbers are all over the place! Here's the robots.txt file: User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webrocket
Allow: /
Disallow: /aspnet_client/
Disallow: /httperrors/
Disallow: /HTTPErrors/
Disallow: /temp/
Disallow: /test/ Disallow: /i_i_email_friend_request
Disallow: /i_i_narrow_your_search
Disallow: /shopping_cart
Disallow: /add_product_to_favorites
Disallow: /email_friend_request
Disallow: /searchformaction
Disallow: /search_keyword
Disallow: /page=
Disallow: /hid=
Disallow: /fab/* Sitemap: https://www.flagandbanner.com/images/sitemap.xml Anyone have any thoughts as to what our problems are?? Mike0 -
How did these sites get two organic listings?
Hi Guys, If you type the keyword "car seat covers" on Google Australia. You will see one site screenshot below: https://image.prntscr.com/image/lgfcK6DmSSGRo3Jx06yWag.png With double listing and then a site below that with another double listing see: https://image.prntscr.com/image/4yJfPzRjR5mPaQb4rr9l-Q.png Does anyone know why Google is giving both of these double listings, is it something to do with their internal linking? Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wozniak650 -
Why do people put xml sitemaps in subfolders? Why not just the root? What's the best solution?
Just read this: "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location Yet surely it's better to put the sitemaps at the root so you have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
and so on... OR this kind of approach -
(b) http://example/com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml and
http://example.com/sitemap/spongecakes.xml I would tend towards (a) rather than (b) - which is the best option? Also, can I keep the structure the same for sitemaps that are subcategories of other sitemaps - for example - for a subcategory of http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml I might create http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml - or should I add a sub folder to turn it into http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes/cherryicing.xml Look forward to reading your comments - Luke0 -
Worth Improving HTML Sort Order?
Our developer has suggested that we alter our HTML so the important content appears at the very top of the source code and Google can index our pages more efficiently. Is this a worthwhile improvement in terms of improving ranking? Our developer describes the improvement in this manner: sort-order of the important content inside the code, so we may have similar text code ratio at the end but the important code we need Google to index will be at the very top in the source code, in terms of a very technical approach Google will find the key content faster and that should help to improve the crawling process as search engines read HTML code linearly. This change do not necessarily will affect the HTML, we can achieve it by using style sheet (CSS code) instead, reducing the chance of major BUGs. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Can I tell Google to Ignore Parts of a Page?
Hi all, I was wondering if there was some sort of html trick that I could use to selectively tell a search engine to ignore texts on certain parts of a page. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Charles_Murdock
Charles0 -
Google Not Indexing XML Sitemap Images
Hi Mozzers, We are having an issue with our XML sitemap images not being indexed. The site has over 39,000 pages and 17,500 images submitted in GWT. If you take a look at the attached screenshot, 'GWT Images - Not Indexed', you can see that the majority of the pages are being indexed - but none of the images are. The first thing you should know about the images is that they are hosted on a content delivery network (CDN), rather than on the site itself. However, Google advice suggests hosting on a CDN is fine - see second screenshot, 'Google CDN Advice'. That advice says to either (i) ensure the hosting site is verified in GWT or (ii) submit in robots.txt. As we can't verify the hosting site in GWT, we had opted to submit via robots.txt. There are 3 sitemap indexes: 1) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap_index.xml, 2) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/listings.xml and 3) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/plants.xml. Each sitemap index is split up into often hundreds or thousands of smaller XML sitemaps. This is necessary due to the size of the site and how we have decided to pull URLs in. Essentially, if we did it another way, it may have involved some of the sitemaps being massive and thus taking upwards of a minute to load. To give you an idea of what is being submitted to Google in one of the sitemaps, please see view-source:http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/4/listings.xml?page=1. Originally, the images were SSL, so we decided to reverted to non-SSL URLs as that was an easy change. But over a week later, that seems to have had no impact. The image URLs are ugly... but should this prevent them from being indexed? The strange thing is that a very small number of images have been indexed - see http://goo.gl/P8GMn. I don't know if this is an anomaly or whether it suggests no issue with how the images have been set up - thus, there may be another issue. Sorry for the long message but I would be extremely grateful for any insight into this. I have tried to offer as much information as I can, however please do let me know if this is not enough. Thank you for taking the time to read and help. Regards, Mark Oz6HzKO rYD3ICZ
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edlondon0 -
How often to resubmit updated sitemap?
Hello Forum, I am working with an eCommerce website (not huge, a site with ~300 products and a blog that is updated every few days) that occasionally adds new products and may make a few large edits per week, if that. Our CMS can automatically generate and submit our sitemap. Over what time interval is should we do this for? Daily, weekly, monthly, etc? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pano0 -
Anyone getting anything from paid submissions?
I was wondering if there was still effectiveness in the finding of directories via: plastic surgery "submit site". Below is an example of the directories I found that offer paid listings into their directory. How do you measure what a good price is versus too expensive? How do you evaluate which directories are worth it? Alexa rank, pr and inbound links? If so what are the metrics you use? Obviously we are purely looking from a rankings/seo perspective because nobody actually uses these directories right? Avia directory pr5 - the featured page your link would be on is pr 4. http://www.avivadirectory.com/Health/Cosmetic-Surgery/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PEnterprises
A permanent link is $149 and a annual link is $49 Findelio pr 4 - however page where my liink would be is pr0 http://www.findelio.com/5981/Cosmetic_and_Plastic_Surgery/
One time fee is $39. So although this is much cheaper but the pr is none. So in this instance do you not buy the submission? I do notice some of my competition in some of these directories. Should that be my indicator?
I thought that maybe these companies bought into these directories a long time ago and wouldn't still do so today. Is there more effective uses of my $50, $100 or $150 or whatever? Interested to see what peoples thoughts are on this type of linkbuilding in todays world. Or if that even matters and this will always be beneficial? Thanks!0