Sitemap Warnings
-
Due to an issue with our CMS, I had a bunch of URL aliases that were being indexed and causing duplicate content issues.
I disallowed indexing of the bad URLs (they all had a similar URL structure so that was easy). I did this until I could clean up the bad URLs
I then recieved a bunch of sitemap warnings that the URLs that I blocked URLs with robots.txt that were in the sitemap.
Isn't this the point of robots.txt? Why am I getting warnings and how can I get rid of them?
-
Irving -
Ok, so we took the restriction out of robots.txt while IT tries to fix the issue of URLs showing up on the sitemap that shouldn't.
Warnings haven't fallen off and now our sitemap is a day behind now as it's stuck in pending for almost a full day.
Any thoughts on what might be causing? I'm assuming this is impacting what's indexed and hurting our site.
-
Ok, so we took the restriction out of robots.txt while IT tries to fix the issue of URLs showing up on the sitemap that shouldn't.
Warnings haven't fallen off and now our sitemap is a day behind now as it's stuck in pending for almost a full day.
Any thoughts on what might be causing? I'm assuming this is impacting what's indexed and hurting our site.
-
Irving,
Totally get that and we're working to ensure they are no longer included in the sitemap.
Thanks,
Lisa
-
The purpose of your sitemap is to tell Google to go out and index the pages you specify. The purpose of the robots.txt is to tell Google not to index the page. The warning is likely just a precaution to let you know that you may have by accident requested them to block something in robots.txt. If you remove the URL's from your submitted sitemap the warnings should disappear. If you leave them, you will have warnings but Google should not index the content since your blocked it in robots.txt.
-
you are not supposed to include blocked URLs in the sitemap.xml files, or Google considers it wasting their crawl time. Are these automated sitemap.xml files?
You're basically saying "come index these pages i've listed, but don't index them!"
Remove the URLs that are blocked content (or rerun/regenerate them) and resubmit the sitemaps and the warnings will go away.
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
-
I have 702 'No-Index' warnings. Is this bad?
Moz has giving me 702 'No-Indexed Meta-descriptions' warnings. My page has quite a bit of product pages as it is a commercial chemical company which sells cleaning products for restaurants, hospitals, etc. Im wondering if this is effecting my site negatively?
Moz Pro | | ACSmt0 -
Why might Google be crawling via old sitemap, when the new one has been submitted and verified?
We have recently relaunched Scoutzie.com and re-submitted our new sitemap to Google. When I look on Webmaster tools, our new sitemap has been submitted just fine, but at the same time, Google is finding a lot of 404s when crawling the site. My understanding, it is still using crawling the old links, which do not exists. How can I tell Google to refresh it's index and to stop looking at all the old links?
Moz Pro | | scoutzie0 -
Warnings, Notices, and Errors- don't know how to correct these
I have been watching my Notices, Warnings and Errors increase since I added a blog to our WordPress site. Is this effecting our SEO? We now have the following: 2 4XX errors. 1 is for a page that we changed the title and nav for in mid March. And one for a page we removed. The nav on the site is working as far as I can see. This seems like a cache issue, but who knows? 20 warnings for “missing meta description tag”. These are all blog archive and author pages. Some have resulted from pagination and are “Part 2, Part 3, Part 4” etc. Others are the first page for authors. And there is one called “new page” that I can’t locate in our Pages admin and have no idea what it is. 5 warnings for “title element too long”. These are also archive pages that have the blog name and so are pages I can’t access through the admin to control page title plus “part 2’s and so on. 71 Notices for “Rel Cononical”. The rel cononicals are all being generated automatically and are for pages of all sorts. Some are for a content pages within the site, a bunch are blog posts, and archive pages for date, blog category and pagination archive pages 6 are 301’s. These are split between blog pagination, author and a couple of site content pages- contact and portfolio. Can’t imagine why these are here. 8 meta-robot nofollow. These are blog articles but only some of the posts. Don’t know why we are generating this for some and not all. And half of them are for the exact same page so there are really only 4 originals on this list. The others are dupes. 8 Blocked my meta-robots. And are also for the same 4 blog posts but duplicated twice each. We use All in One SEO. There is an option to use noindex for archives, categories that I do not have enabled. And also to autogenerate descriptions which I do not have enabled. I wasn’t concerned about these at first, but I read these (below) questions yesterday, and think I'd better do something as these are mounting up. I’m wondering if I should be asking our team for some code changes but not sure what exactly would be best. http://www.seomoz.org/q/pages-i-dont-want-customers-to-see http://www.robotstxt.org/meta.html Our site is http://www.fateyes.com Thanks so much for any assistance on this!
Moz Pro | | gfiedel0 -
I have a Rel Canonical "notice" in my Crawl Diagnostics report. I'm presuming that means that the spider has detected a rel canonical tag and it is working as opposed to warning about an issue, is this correct?
I know this seems like a really dumb question but the site I'm working on is a BigCommerce one and I've been concerned about canonicalisation issues prior to receiving this report (I'm a SEOmoz pro newbie also!) and I just want to be clear I am reading this notice correctly. I presume this means that the site crawl has detected the rel canonical tag on these pages and it is working correctly. Is this correct?? Any input is much appreciated. Thanks
Moz Pro | | seanpearse0 -
SEO Web Crawler - Referrer Lists XML Sitemap URL
Hello!, I recently ran the crawl tool on a client site. Opening up the file, I noticed that the referring URLs listed are my XML sitemaps and not (X)HTML pages. Any reason or thoughts behind why this is happening? Thanks!
Moz Pro | | MorpheusMedia0 -
404 Page/Content Duplicates & its "Warning"
My website has MANY duplicate pages and content which are both derived from the MANY 404 pages on my website. While these are flagged in SEOmoz as "Warnings," should this be of concern to SEO effectiveness?
Moz Pro | | dhk50180 -
SEOMoz Crawl Warnings, do they really hurt rankings?
SEOMoz reports 250 crawl warnings on my site. In most cases its too long title tags, with 4 of them its missing meta description. SEOMoz says it will hurt my rankings? However, I'm sure a recent whiteboard Friday contradicted this. So what is it?
Moz Pro | | sanchez19600 -
SEOMoz Campaign shows Warnings for pages with >200 and <300 links
We currently use SEOMoz's campaign tool to review the SEO progress of our site. One thing we are unsure of is that SEOMoz gives us a warning for over 1000 of our pages because we have around 200 links on those pages (all in the Menu Drop Downs). I read the post and watched the video, Whiteboard Friday Flat Site Architecture a while ago and Rand mentioned there is no issue with having a web page with 200 to 300 links and he even encouraged it. So why would these show up as warnings in our Campaign?
Moz Pro | | PBCLinear0