Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
-
Hi All,
I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us.
It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all
Common beliefs:
-
Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic.
-
A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling.
-
In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing.
-
If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour.
These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed.
Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed.
Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited.
It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling.
This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues.
Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all?
If you are interested, our map looks like this :
http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml
Many thanks
Paul
-
-
44 relates to the number of pages with the same urls as in your sitemap - it is not everything that is index. Your old site is still indexed and being found, as Google visits those pages and gets redirected to a new page it is likely that number will increase (from 44) and the number of old indexed will decrease.
Google doesn't index sites on a one-off go around because then if may take say 4 months to come back and index again and if you've a new important page that gets lots of links and you don't get indexed and ranked for it because you've not been visited you wouldn't be happy. Also if this was done on every site it would take forever and take much more resources than even google has. it is annoying but you've just got to grin and bear it - at least you old site is still ranking and being found.
-
Thanks Andy,
What I dont get, is why Google would index in this way. I can understand why they would weight the importance of a page based on the number/strength of incoming links but not the decision to index it at all when lead in by a sitemap.
I just get a little frustrated when Google offers you seemingly definitive stats only to find they are so vague and mysterious they have little to no value. We should have 1400+ pages indexed, we clearly have more than 44 indexed ... what on earth does the number 44 relate to?
-
I think that as your sitemap reflect your new urls and this is what the index is based on you are likely to have more indexed from what you say. I would suggest going to "indexed status" under health of GWT and click total index and ever crawled, this may help clear this up.
-
I experienced this issue with sandboxed websites.
Market your products and in a few months every page should be in Google's index.
Cheers.
-
Thanks for the quick responses.
We had a bit of a URL reshuffle recently to make them a little more informative and to prevent each page URL terminating with "product.aspx". But that was around a month ago. Prior to that, we were around 40% indexed for pages (from the sitemap section of WM tools), and always zero for images.
So given that we clearly have more than 44 pages indexed by Google, what do you think that figure actually means?
-
dealing with your indexing issue first - depending on when you submitted depends how soon those pages may be indexed. I say "may" because a sitemap (yes answering another question) is just an indicator of "i have these pages" it does not mean they will be indexed - indeed unless you've a small website you will never have 100% indexation in my experience.
Spiders (search robots) index / visit a website / page via another link. They follow links to a page from around the web, or the site itself. The more links from around the web the quicker you will get indexed. (this explains why if you've 10,000 pages you won't ever get a link from other websites to them all and so they won't all get indexed). This means if you've a web page that gets a ton of links it will be indexed sooner than those with just 1 link - assuming all links are equal (which they aren't).
Spiders are not cyclic in their searching, it's very ad-hoc based on links in your site and other sites linking to you. A spider won't be sent to spider every page on your site - it will do a small amount at a time, this is likely why 44 pages are indexed and not more at this point.
A sitemap is (as i say) an indicator of pages in your site, the importance of them and when they were updated / created. it's not really a definitive structure - it's more of a reference guide. Think of it as you being the guide on a bus tour of a city, the search engine is your passenger you are pointing out places of interest and every so often it will see something it wan't to see and get off to look, but it may take many trips to get off at every stop.
Finally, Canonicals are a great way to clear up duplicate content issues. They aren't 100% successful but they do help - especially if you are using dynamic urls (such as paginating category pages).
hope that helps
-
I see your frustration, how long ago did you submit these site maps? Are we talking a couple of weeks or a couple of days/ a day? As I've seen myself, Google is not that fast at calculating the nr of pages indexed (definitely not within GWT). Mostly within a couple of days/ within a week Google largely increased the nr of pages indexed.
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
-
Pending Sitemaps
Hi, all Wondering if someone could give me a pointer or two, please. I cannot seem to get Google or Bing to crawl my sitemap. If I submit the sitemap in WMT and test it I get a report saying 44,322urls found. However, if I then submit that same sitemap it either says Pending (in old WMT) or Couldn't fetch in the new version. This couldn't fetch is very puzzling as it had no issue fetching the map to test it. My other domains on the same server are fine, the problem is limited to this one site. I have tried several pages on the site using the Fetch as Google tool and they load without issue, however, try as I may, it will not fetch my sitemap. The sitemapindex.xml file won't even submit. I can confirm my sitemaps, although large, work fine, please see the following as an example (minus the spaces, of course, didn't want to submit and make it look like I was just trying to get a link) https:// digitalcatwalk .co.uk/sitemap.xml https:// digitalcatwalk .co.uk/sitemapindex.xml I would welcome any feedback anyone could offer on this, please. It's driving me mad trying to work out what is up. Many thanks, Jeff
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wonkydogadmin0 -
What does Disallow: /french-wines/?* actually do - robots.txt
Hello Mozzers - Just wondering what this robots.txt instruction means: Disallow: /french-wines/?* Does it stop Googlebot crawling and indexing URLs in that "French Wines" folder - specifically the URLs that include a question mark? Would it stop the crawling of deeper folders - e.g. /french-wines/rhone-region/ that include a question mark in their URL? I think this has been done to block URLs containing query strings. Thanks, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
No images in Google index
No images are indexed on this site (client of ours): http://www.rubbermagazijn.nl/. We've tried everything (descriptive alt texts, image sitemaps, fetch&render, check robots) but a site:www.rubbermagazijn.nl shows 0 image results and the sitemap report in Search Console shows 0 images indexed. We're not sure how to proceed from here. Is there anyone with an idea what the problem could be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Adriaan.Multiply0 -
Duplicate/ <title>element too long issues</title>
I have a "duplicate <title>"/"<title> element too long" issue with thousands of pages. In the future I would like to automate these in a way that keeps them from being duplicated AND too long. The solution I came up with was to standardize these monthly posts with a similar, shorter, <title>, but then differentiate by adding the month and the year of the post at the end of each <title>. Hundreds of these come out every week, so it is hard to sit there and come up with a unique <title> every time. With this solution the <title> tags would undoubtedly be short enough, however my primary concern is, would simply adding the month and year at the end of each <title> be enough for Google/Moz to decide it is not a duplicate? How much variation is enough for it not to be deemed a duplicate <title>? </p></title>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Brian_Dowd0 -
I've got duplicate pages. For example, blog/page/2 is the same as author/admin/page/2\. Is this something I should just ignore, or should I create the author/admin/page2 and then 301 redirect?
I'm going through the crawl report and it says I've got duplicate pages. For example, blog/page/2 is the same as author/admin/page/2/ Now, the author/admin/page/2 I can't even find in WordPress, but it is the same thing as blog/page/2 nonetheless. Is this something I should just ignore, or should I create the author/admin/page2 and then 301 redirect it to blog/page/2?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shift-inc0 -
Is 301 redirecting your index page to the root '/' safe to do or do you end up in an endless loop?
Hi I need to tidy up my home page a little, I have some links to our index.html page but I just want them to go to the root '/' so I thought I could 301 redirect it. However is this safe to do? I'm getting duplicate page notifications in my analytic reportings tools about the home page and need a quick way to fix this issue. Many thanks in advance David
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | David-E-Carey0 -
Indexed Pages in Google, How do I find Out?
Is there a way to get a list of pages that google has indexed? Is there some software that can do this? I do not have access to webmaster tools, so hoping there is another way to do this. Would be great if I could also see if the indexed page is a 404 or other Thanks for your help, sorry if its basic question 😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPeters0 -
Index.php canonical/dup issues
Hello my fellow SEOs! I would LOVE some additional insight/opinions on the following... I have a client who is an industry leader, big site, ranks for many competitive phrases, blah blah..you get the picture. However, they have a big dup content/canonical issue. Most pages resolve with and without the /index.php at the end of the URL. Obviously this is a dup content issue but more importantly they SEs sometimes serve an "index.php" version of the page, sometimes they don't, and it is constantly changing which version it serves and the rank goes up and down. Now, I've instructed them that we are going to need to write a sitewide redirect to attempt a uniform structure. Most people would say, redirect to the non index.php version buttttt 1. The index.php pages consistently outperforms the non index.php versions, except the homepage. 2. The client really would prefer to have the "index.php" at the end of the URL The homepage performs extremely well for a lot of competitive phrases. I'd like to redirect all pages to the "index.php" version except the homepage and I'm thinking that if I redirect all pages EXCEPT the homepage to the index.php version, it could cause some unforeseen issues. I can not use rel=canonical because they have many different versions of the their pages with different country codes in the URL..example, if I make the US version canonical, it will hurt the pages trying to rank with a fr URL, de URL, (where fr/de are country codes in the URL depending where the user is, it serves the correct version). Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks in advance! Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MikeCoughlin0