If I'm using a compressed sitemap (sitemap.xml.gz) that's the URL that gets submitted to webmaster tools, correct?
-
I just want to verify that if a compressed sitemap file is being used, then the URL that gets submitted to Google, Bing, etc and the URL that's used in the robots.txt indicates that it's a compressed file. For example, "sitemap.xml.gz" -- thanks!
-
Good Choice. The XML Sitemap spec has specific maximum sizes for individual sitemaps, but they are specified sizes before compression, so compression doesn't get you around the size limitations anyway
P.
-
Thanks Paul. I wound up turning compression off because the sitemap itself isn't very big and didn't think it was necessary.
And if I see it in the future on a client's website, I'll know what to do.
Cheers,
Jason -
Yup - you have to use the actual URL of the sitemap for submission. The search engines will handle it fine - as you can confirm by watching in GSC and Bing Webmaster Tools that it's getting processed.
Paul
P.S. There's really no particular benefit to using a compressed sitemap anymore.
-
Well, that didn't really answer the question but thanks for responding anyways.
-
I've never used compressed site maps for Google.
All they are looking for is an XML list of pages, providing Google can read it that's all that really matters.
I don't have any experience of bing i'm afraid, I just let it work.
Hope that helps
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
-
Sitemap url's not being indexed
There is an issue on one of our sites regarding many of the sitemap url's not being indexed. (at least 70% is not being indexed) The url's in the sitemap are normal url's without any strange characters attached to them, but after looking into it, it seems a lot of the url's get a #. + a number sequence attached to them once you actually go to that url. We are not sure if the "addthis" bookmark could cause this, or if it's another script doing it. For example Url in the sitemap: http://example.com/example-category/0246 Url once you actually go to that link: http://example.com/example-category/0246#.VR5a Just for further information, the XML file does not have any style information associated with it and is in it's most basic form. Has anyone had similar issues with their sitemap not being indexed properly ?...Could this be the cause of many of these url's not being indexed ? Thanks all for your help.
Technical SEO | | GreenStone0 -
Disavow file and backlinks listed in webmaster tools
Hi guys, I've sent a disavow file via webmaster tools. After that, should the backlinks from domains listed in that file disappear from the list of links to my website in webmaster tools? Or does webmaster tools show all the links, whether I've sent disavow file or not?
Technical SEO | | superseopl0 -
Strange Webmaster Tools Crawl Report
Up until recently I had robots.txt blocking the indexing of my pdf files which are all manuals for products we sell. I changed this last week to allow indexing of those files and now my webmaster tools crawl report is listing all my pdfs as not founds. What is really strange is that Webmaster Tools is listing an incorrect link structure: "domain.com/file.pdf" instead of "domain.com/manuals/file.pdf" Why is google indexing these particular pages incorrectly? My robots.txt has nothing else in it besides a disallow for an entirely different folder on my server and my htaccess is not redirecting anything in regards to my manuals folder either. Even in the case of outside links present in the crawl report supposedly linking to this 404 file when I visit these 3rd party pages they have the correct link structure. Hope someone can help because right now my not founds are up in the 500s and that can't be good 🙂 Thanks is advance!
Technical SEO | | Virage0 -
Site (Subdomain) Removal from Webmaster Tools
We have two subdomains that have been verified in Google Webmaster Tools. These subdomains were used by 3rd parties which we no longer have an affiliation with (the subdomains no longer serve a purpose). We have been receiving an error message from Google: "Googlebot can't access your site. Over the last 24 hours, Googlebot encountered 1 errors while attempting to retrieve DNS information for your site. The overall error rate for DNS queries for your site is 100.00%". I originally investigated using Webmaster Tools' URL Removal Tool to remove the subdomain, but there are no indexed pages. Is this a case of simply 'deleting' the site from the Manage Site tab in the Webmaster Tools interface?
Technical SEO | | Cary_PCC0 -
Structuring URL's for better SEO
Hello, We were rolling our fresh urls for our new service website. Currently we have our structure as www.practo.com/health/dental/clinic/bangalore We like to have it as www.practo.com/health/dental-clinic-bangalore Can someone advice us better which one of the above structure would work out better and why? Should this be a focus of attention while going ahead since this is like a search engine platform for patients looking out for actual doctors. Thanks, Aditya
Technical SEO | | shanky10 -
What can I do if Google Webmaster Tools doesn't recognize the robots.txt file?
I'm working on a recently hacked site for a client and and in trying to identify how exactly the hack is running I need to use the fetch as Google bot feature in GWT. I'd love to use this but it thinks the robots.txt is blocking it's acces but the only thing in the robots.txt file is a link to the sitemap. Unde the Blocked URLs section of the GWT it shows that the robots.txt was last downloaded yesterday but it's incorrect information. Is there a way to force Google to look again?
Technical SEO | | DotCar0 -
Why this page doesn't get indexed?
Hi, I've just taken over development and SEO for a site and we're having difficulty getting some key pages indexed on our site. They are two clicks away from the homepage, but still not getting indexed. They are recently created pages, with unique content on. The architecture looks like this:Homepage >> Car page >> Engine specific pageWhenever we add a new car, we link to its 'Car page' and it gets indexed very quickly. However the 'Engine pages' for that car don't get indexed, even after a couple of weeks. An example of one of these index pages are - http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/car-reviews/Volkswagen/Beetle-New/2.0-TSISo, things we've checked - 1. Yes, it's not blocked by robots.txt2. Yes, it's in the sitemap (http://www.carbuzz.co.uk/sitemap.xml)3. Yes, it's viewable to search spiders (e.g. the link is present in the html source)This page doesn't have a huge amount of unique content. We're a review aggregator, but it still does have some. Any suggestions as to why it isn't indexed?Thanks, David
Technical SEO | | soulnafein0 -
How to use overlays without getting a Google penalty
One of my clients is an email subscriber-led business offering deals that are time sensitive and which expire after a limited, but varied, time period. Each deal is published on its own URL and in order to drive subscriptions to the email, an overlay was implemented that would appear over the individual deal page so that the user was forced to subscribe if they wished to view the details of the deal. Needless to say, this led to the threat of a Google penalty which _appears (fingers crossed) _to have been narrowly avoided as a result of a quick response on our part to remove the offending overlay. What I would like to ask you is whether you have any safe and approved methods for capturing email subscribers without revealing the premium content to users before they subscribe? We are considering the following approaches: First Click Free for Web Search - This is an opt in service by Google which is widely used for this sort of approach and which stipulates that you have to let the user see the first item they click on from the listings, but can put up the subscriber only overlay afterwards. No Index, No follow - if we simply no index, no follow the individual deal pages where the overlay is situated, will this remove the "cloaking offense" and therefore the risk of a penalty? Partial View - If we show one or two paragraphs of text from the deal page with the rest being covered up by the subscribe now lock up, will this still be cloaking? I will write up my first SEOMoz post on this once we have decided on the way forward and monitored the effects, but in the meantime, I welcome any input from you guys.
Technical SEO | | Red_Mud_Rookie0