Sitemap Indexed vs. Submitted
-
My sitemap has been submitted to Google for well over 6 months and is updated frequently, a total of 979 URLs have been submitted by only 145 indexed. What can I do to get Google to index them all?
-
SF finding 'useless' links is actually part of its purpose, if you believe they're useless you should be asking why they're there. Your XML sitemap should have nothing but clean URLs; 200 response codes and not canonicalized to another URL. The problem isn't that you have category URLs, it's that those (like the one in my previous example) have a canonical tag that points elsewhere. Anytime this is the case, the URL is considered un-indexable. You can see the proof of this by doing a Google search for "https://www.interstellarstore.com/meteorite-jewelry/meteorite-necklaces", I just checked and this URL isn't in the index.
You mentioned the age in your original comment that your XML sitemap had been submitted for well over 6 months, that's where I got the age from, maybe I misunderstood?
You have no reason to not trust SF, it's one of the most valuable tools in an SEO's toolbox. I've used it for 5+ years to create hundreds of sitemaps and countless other SEO tasks with no problem in providing reliable, accurate data points.
-
Hi Logan,
I tried using Screaming Frog but it kept finding useless links, so I wrote the sitemap myself and I update it manually, I updated it only this morning. What makes you think it is over 6 months since an update?
I was told on Moz in an earlier post that having all of the category links, not just the canonical ones, wasn't a problem, is this not the case?
Every link in the sitemap should work fine, I wrote it by copy and pasting the links directly from my site. I have no trust in Screaming Frog.
-
Hi,
I poked around a bit on your sitemap and noticed a couple things:
- You've got URLs on there that have canonicals to another page. For example:This page https://www.interstellarstore.com/meteorite-jewelry/meteorite-necklaces has a canonical tag that points here https://www.interstellarstore.com/meteorite-necklaces.
- A bunch of the URLs in your sitemap redirect elsewhere or have no response - I got 13% through crawling your XML sitemap with Screaming Frog and there were zero 200 response code URLs, not good.
Both of these things combined are causing a discrepancy in the amount of submitted URLs vs. indexed URLs. If you use Screaming Frog to create your XML sitemap it's quite easy to have only clean URLs in there. You can easily remove all URLs that are not 200 status and by default Screaming Frog will exclude any URL that canonicalizes to another URL.
Also, as a side note, you should be updating your XML sitemap more frequently, a 6 month old sitemap for an ecommerce site is far too old with new products being added and products dropping off.
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
-
To remove or not remove a redirected page from index
We have a promotion landing page which earned some valuable inbound links. Now that the promotion is over, we have redirected this page to a current "evergreen" page. But in the search results page on Google, the original promotion landing page is still showing as a top result. When clicked, it properly redirects to the newer evergreen page. But, it's a bit problematic for the original promo page to show in the search results because the snippet mentions specifics of the promo which is no longer active. So, I'm wondering what would be the net impact of using the "removal request " tool for the original page in GSC. If we don't use that tool, what kind of timing might we expect before the original page drops out of the results in favor of the new redirected page? And if we do use the removal tool on the original page, will that negate what we are attempting to do by redirecting to the new page, with regard to preserving inbound link equity?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoelevated0 -
Google does not want to index my page
I have a site that is hundreds of page indexed on Google. But there is a page that I put in the footer section that Google seems does not like and are not indexing that page. I've tried submitting it to their index through google webmaster and it will appear on Google index but then after a few days it's gone again. Before that page had canonical meta to another page, but it is removed now.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | odihost0 -
Google does not index image sitemap
Hi, we put an image sitemap in the searchconsole/webmastertools http://www.sillasdepaseo.es/sillasdepaseo/sitemap-images.xml it contains only the indexed products and all images on the pages. We also claimed the CDN in the searchconsole http://media.sillasdepaseo.es/ It has been 2 weeks now, Google indexes the pages, but not the images. What can we do? Thanks in advance. Dieter Lang
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco0 -
Invest in a Image Sitemap - Yes or No?
Hey Mozers, 2 part question I'm reaching out to see if you all think Image Sitemaps are totally worth it for a big company. I can totally understand its value for a smaller mom & pop company. With a larger company they would have way more products so is it worth it having an image site map? I cant find examples of image sitemaps online. Would you be able to provide a website that is doing it? I can only find video sitemaps.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rpaiva0 -
Robots.txt vs noindex
I recently started working on a site that has thousands of member pages that are currently robots.txt'd out. Most pages of the site have 1 to 6 links to these member pages, accumulating into what I regard as something of link juice cul-d-sac. The pages themselves have little to no unique content or other relevant search play and for other reasons still want them kept out of search. Wouldn't it be better to "noindex, follow" these pages and remove the robots.txt block from this url type? At least that way Google could crawl these pages and pass the link juice on to still other pages vs flushing it into a black hole. BTW, the site is currently dealing with a hit from Panda 4.0 last month. Thanks! Best... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Why my site it's not being indexed?
Hello.... I got to tell that I feel like a newbie (I am, but know I feel like it)... We were working with a client until january this year, they kept going on their own until september that they contacted us again... Someone on the team that handled things while we were gone, updated it´s robots.txt file to Disallow everything... for maybe 3 weeks before we were back in.... Additionally they were working on a different subdomain, the new version of the site and of course the didn't block the robots on that one. So now the whole site it's been duplicated, even it´s content, the exact same pages exist on the suddomain that was public the same time the other one was blocked. We came in changes the robots.txt file on both server, resend all the sitemaps, sent our URL on google+... everything the book says... but the site it´s not getting indexed. It's been 5 weeks now and no response what so ever. We were highly positioned on several important keywords and now it's gone. I now you guys can help, any advice will be highly appreciated. thanks Dan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | daniel.alvarez0 -
XML Sitemap index within a XML sitemaps index
We have a similar problem to http://www.seomoz.org/q/can-a-xml-sitemap-index-point-to-other-sitemaps-indexes Can a XML sitemap index point to other sitemaps indexes? According to the "Unique Doll Clothing" example on this link, it seems possible http://www.seomoz.org/blog/multiple-xml-sitemaps-increased-indexation-and-traffic Can someone share an XML Sitemap index within a XML sitemaps index example? We are looking for the format to implement the same on our website.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lakshdeep0 -
How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/). My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries. So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #). I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way? If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue. Best, -G
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Celts180