Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
-
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines.
Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed.Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.
-
Hey Paul
Did you get any response after tweeting Google? Thx.
-
Paul
That was an excellent response. I also appreciate you going out of your way to hit up Google directly about this as well.Yes we believe that this it is completely unnecessary to employ valuable resources to resolve a very minor issue. However our client would is going to ask us to back our argument.
Thanks again
-
As usual, Mueller's answers can be problematic because they're actually kind of vague. (e.g. his use of "if you use one of the other methods, make sure to follow those instructions separately" in that seroundtable article) Because the question asked in that article is specifically about responsive sites, non m. separate URL versions.
Here's the best I can give you... On that guidelines page you ,inked, Google specifically provides instructions for how to either include the mobile-URL versions of pages in the rel-alternate tag or by annotating the desktop sitemap to include rel-alternate info for the mobile URLS.
It does not make any mention of saying "or you can simply include the mobile URLs in the sitemap as well." Google's usually pretty good about telling us when there is more than one alternate method, while indicating which one they prefer. in this vase, I have to assume the conspicuous absence of any mention of including mobile URLs separately means it shouldn't be done.
Still conjecture, but does that make sense?
I'd definitely say it's imperative that the rel-alternate/rel-canonical treatment must be in place. Beyond that, I suspect it's a crawl budget/crawl efficiency issue, not an actual "indexing will break if mobile URLs are in sitemap" situation. As such, I wouldn't want to prioritise an expensive solution to this over whatever other more high-impact projects might be awaiting funding.
Just for the hell of it, I'll tweet at the Google guys to see if I can get a direct response to "will it cause harm" and let you know if I hear back.
I know this is just another perspective, not anything definitive, but hope it helps?
Paul
-
-
Thanks Thomas. The challenge we have is providing our client with a reputable source (not saying your not credible..lol) that states this is a negligible issue.
-
I don't believe that having the mobile urls in the sitemap is causing any issue. Due to the fact that these urls presumably can be crawled anyway on the mobile subdomain. I can't see any negative for having these urls on a sitemap.
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
-
Duplicate H1 on single page for mobile and desktop
I have a responsive site and whilst this works and is liked by google from a user perspective the pages could look better on mobile. I have a wordpress site and use the Divi Builder with elegant themes and have developed a separate page header for mobile that uses a manipulated background image and smaller H1 font size. When crawling the site two H1s can be detected on the same page - they are exactly the same words and only one will show according to device. However, I need to know if this will cause me a problem with google and SEO. As the mobile changes are not just font size but also adaptations to some visual elements it is not something I can simply alter in the CSS. Would appreciate some input as to whether this is a problem or not
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cells4Life0 -
Website using search term as URL brand name to cheat Google
Google has come a long way over the past 5 years, the quality updates have really helped bring top quality content to the top that is relevant for users search terms, although there is one really ANNOYING thing that still has not been fixed. Websites using brand name as service search term to manipulate Google I have got a real example but I wouldn't like to use it in case the brand mentions flags up in their tools and they spot this post, but take this search for example "Service+Location" You will get 'service+location.com' rank #1 Why? Heaven knows. They have less than 100 backlinks which are of a very low, spammy quality from directories. The content is poor compared to the competition and the competitors have amazing link profiles, great social engagement, much better website user experience and the data does not prove anything. All the competitors are targeting the same search term but yet the worst site is ranking the highest. Why on earth is Google not fixing this issue. This page we are seeing rank #1 do not even deserve to be ranking on the first 5 pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jseddon920 -
Domain Authority... http://www.domain.com/ vs. http://domain.com vs. http://domain.com/
Hey Guys, Looking at Page Authority for my Site and ranking them in Decending Order, I see these 3 http://www.domain.com/ | Authority 62 http://domain.com | Authority 52 http://domain.com/ | Authority 52 Since the first one listed has the highest Authority, should I be using a 301 redirects on the lower ranking variations (which I understand how works) or should I be using rel="canonical" (which I don't really understand how it works) Also, if this is a problem that I should address, should we see a significant boost if fixed? Thanks ahead of time for anyone who can help a lost sailor who doesn't know how to sail and probably shouldn't have left shore in the first place. Cheers ZP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr_Snack0 -
URLs: Removing duplicate pages using anchor?
I've been working on removing duplicate content on our website. There are tons of pages created based on size but the content is the same. The solution was to create a page with 90% static content and 10% dynamic, that changed depending on the "size" Users can select the size from a dropdown box. So instead of 10 URLs, I now have one URL. Users can access a specific size by adding an anchor to the end of the URL (?f=suze1, ?f=size2) For e.g: Old URLs. www.example.com/product-alpha-size1 www.example.com/product-alpha-size2 www.example.com/product-alpha-size3 www.example.com/product-alpha-size4 www.example.com/product-alpha-size5 New URLs www.example.com/product-alpha-size1 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size2 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size3 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size4 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size5 Do search engines read the anchor or drop them? Will the rank juice be transfered to just www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
URL strategy mobile website
Hello everyone, We are facing a challenging decision about where our website (Flash Gaming website) is going. We are in the process of creating html5 games in the same theme of the flash games that we provide to our users. Now our main concern is to decide how to show this new content to the user? Shall we create brand new set of urls such as : http://www.mydomain.com/games/mobile/kids/ Or shall we adapt the main desktop url : http://www.mydomain.com/games/kids/ and show the users two different versions of the page depending on whether they are using a mobile device (so they see a mobile version) or a pc/laptop (so they a see desktop version). Or even redirect people to a sub-domain : http://m.mydomain.com/ The main idea we had is to keep the same url structure, as it seems that google is giving the same search results if you are using a mobile device or not. And creating a new set of urls or even a sub-domain, may involve a lot of work to get those new links to the same PA as the desktop URL that is here and know since a while now. Also the desktop page game should not be accessible to the mobile devices, so should this be redirected (301?) to the mobile homepage of the site? But how google will look at the fact that one url is giving 2 different contents, CSS etc, and also all those redirects might look strange... we are worried that doing so will hurt the page authority and its ranking ... but we are trying to find the best way to combine SEO and user experience. Any input on this will be really appreciated. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | drimlike0 -
If this is what happens when a penalty is removed, I want more penalties
So a couple of weeks ago I posted that we had submitted a reconsideration request along with a list of about 40 spam pages that were linking to us that we had attempted to have remove their links to us. On 8/3 we received a note from Google that our manual penalty had been removed. We have thousands of inbound links so these 40 pages were a minuscule part of our links and ones that we hadn't tried to get in the first place. So I thought "Great, our rankings should go up." Up until this point our year-to-year organic Google traffic was between 45% and 100% over last year. As of 8/9 our traffic is now only 26%-39% above last year. I don't think we can handle too many more penalty reversals like this one.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IanTheScot0 -
Help! Why did Google remove my images from their index?
I've been scratching my head over this one for a while now and I can't seem to figure it out. I own a website that is user-generated content. Users submit images to my sites of graphic resources (for designers) that they have created to share with our community. I've been noticing over the past few months that I'm getting completely dominated in Google Images. I used to get a ton of traffic from Google Images, but now I can't find my images anywhere. After diving into Analytics I found this: http://cl.ly/140L2d14040Q1R0W161e and realized sometime about a year ago my image traffic took a dive. We've gone back through all the change logs and can't find where we made any changes to the site structure that could have caused this. We are stumped. Does anyone know of any historical Google updates that could have caused this last year around the end of April 2010? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shawn810 -
Limiting URLS in the HTML Sitemap?
So I started making a sitemap for our new golf site, which has quite a few "low level" pages (about 100 for the golf courses that exist in the area, and then about 50 for course architects), etc etc. My question/open discussion is simple. In a sitemap that already has about 50 links, should we include these other low level 150 links? Of course, the link to the "Golf Courses" is there, along with a link to the "Course Architects" MAIN pages (which, subdivides on THOSE pages.) I have read the limit is around 150 links on the sitemap.html page and while it would be nice to rank long tail for the Golf Courses. All in all, our site architecture itself is easily crawlable as well. So the main question is just to include ALL the links or just the main ones? Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JamesO0