Is a site map necessary or recommended?
-
We have a website that has been up for the past 4 years without a site map.
Google is indexing it. Do we need a site map? Do you recommend we create one and submit it to goggle and bing?
The site is www.logobids.com
Thank you.
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the tip. I checked and our .xml sitemap has 55 pages and Google is indexing 53. not sure what the 2 missing pages are or how to find out, but I imagine the difference may have to do with blog archives or something along those lines. At any rate, I'm reassured by this. Thanks again.
Gina
-
Hi Gina,
If you use Google Webmaster Tools you can see how many pages you submitted on your sitemap and how many Google has indexed under Optimization > Sitemaps.
It will also list if you have an issues with your xml sitemap.
Hope this helps.
Mike
-
I would say that the sitemap is not needed per say, however, it is good practice to have one, whether it be for client navigation around a site or to assist Google with the root navigation of the website.
From the earlier days in my SEO career I was taught to always incorporate a few standard items as basic procedure as they once you are used to the routine you cannot do any harm if even Google no longer needs then, these were things like sitemap.html, sitemap.xml and robot.txt.
It seems like Google is no longer taking a sitemap for the same purpose as it used to as the technology is advancing, so it now seems like personal preference.
A little bit like the old:
"Which should you do first, On-page SEO or Off-page SEO?" debate.
Hope this helps.
-
It's not needed per se, but then if you have a large website and you think about the user and you want them to be easily able to find sections of your website, it can't hurt to have a HTML sitemap.
As for XML sitemap, the only reason I consider doing them to make sure if there are any issues of indexability, I know. So that I can act on that information and do something. Otherwise for a large scale website with over hundreds and thousands of pages, how'd you know if you have a section of your site not indexed for whatever reasons ?
-
This is a strong indicator something is up and deserves deeper investigation.
Perhaps you have content duplication issues, low value content (Panda), spammy back links (Penguin) or other indexing issue. See if there is a pattern to the missing pages, perhaps one of the directories is the cause. How old is the site and how is the domain trust/authority coming along?
-
I'm jumping in here with an offshoot question for Mike. (or anyone else with an idea)
You suggest "If you Google site:logobids.com you can see which of your pages Google has indexed."
I just tried that and only 10 out of 40+ pages on our site are coming up. We have both an html site map and an xml site map on our site. There isn't any noindex code on the site other than for blog comments.
Any idea why Google isn't showing them all?
Thanks!!
-
A stale or poorly created sitemap can hurt in the following ways:
- long lived 404 pages - deleted pages continue to be indexed if not removed from the sitemap
- use up Google indexing allowance - if 404 and low value pages are included, Googlebot will use up valuable indexing allowance on them vs covering more of your important content.
- links to private areas - depending on how the map is created, the tool may not be smart enough to not include administration or community pages that you don't want in the index.
- inclusion of noindex pages - a couple methods (such as a robot.txt update after a sitemap is created) will include noindex pages which a technical problem. I'm not 100% sure of the impact but I could see this being a quality indicator.
- create distracting work - maintaining sitemaps, particularly semi-manual ones from Xenu etc., suck time better spent improving your indexability or earning back links.
However, all of these are easily avoidable with a solid approach and/or good server side tools.
-
Thank you for the responses. It seems like it is something that cant hurt the site or the indexing. The sacrifice is my time, other than that it has nothing but upsides and no downside.
I think we will go forward with creating the site map and submitting to Google.
-
I don't have a site map on any of my sites. Never any problem getting indexed or ranking. None.
-
I may get chastised for this but I believe the value of sitemaps is over stated.
All things being equal, I feel they are crutches and band-aids for poor webdesign/production.
Your site should:
- be easily indexed by all engines
- expose all pages with in four-five links of the home page(s)
- utilize thoughtful linking to promote important content in an organic manner
- expose new content on a high value, frequently indexed page (ie the home page) long enough to be found
- be consistent enough that the site will seem similar after one or two passes by Googlebot.
I like sitemaps when big structural changes occur as the sites heal faster. They're good when a lots of pages are only exposed via a long pagination scheme. I also use them to break down parts of a site to expose problem areas (IE when a sitemap has 50 links but Google only indexes 25 of them)
But, they can be detrimental if they are not maintained properly. If anything changes in the structure, it should be immediately reflected in the sitemap. Lots of automated ones don't consider the robot.txt file which can cause problems.
For SEOs, adding a sitemap is an easy way to ensure everything is at least looked at without having to touch the actual site.
Advice: yes, use them but only if you can use them properly or can't fix current indexing issues. Over the long haul however, you should force yourself to think of it as not there.
-
A sitemap is like a map with driving directions for Google. Sure they can probably find their way through your site, but with a map they can get through more efficiently and make sure to look at all of your pages.
It is not required for a site to get indexed.
If you entire site is indexed, you don't "need" a sitemap; however, it is good practice to have one.
Say you add a new page and want it to get indexed quickly by Google, you would just update your sitemap and submit it to Google. It alerts them you have made changes and to reindex your site.
If you Google site:logobids.com you can see which of your pages Google has indexed.
Hope this helps.
Mike
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
-
We´re in trouble with our on site internal link optimization - please help
Dear Moz community, We have made a great mistake. Looking at keyword search volumes somehow Moz showed volumes for two keywords which only differentiate by an '**s (plural) as same. **Now we optimized our internal links (all links have the keyword) for the singular word. Now looking at other search volume estimations from competitors we see, that the plural has 5 times bigger volume. Our issue: If we change some of the category links now to another keyword, we will loose our ranking with the singular word. Correct? If we do not change any of our internal links, we will never rank in top 6 with the keyword. (currently singular is 6 and plural is 15) What would you reccomend?
On-Page Optimization | | advertisingcloud0 -
Is it bad to include google Maps in footer?
We have 5 locations and we were thinking about including a map for each location in the footer. These would be set-up as no-follow links. They could potentially enhance user experience but it also increases size of footer. Right now there are just basic links to pages (sitemap, terms, etc), contact info, social links, and contact form. If we did the maps it would also include link to the individual location pages. Not sure if we are doing too much in footer or need to just keep it basic. Thanks for the help!
On-Page Optimization | | Restore0 -
Does this site have a duplicate content issue?
Google WMT is showing me only 2 short meta descriptions under "HTML Improvements" but I believe http://www.customgia.com may have a content duplication issue. Numerous keywords are used repeatedly across many product descriptions. To make matters worse, every product page has a "Design It!" button that sends the user to a flash-based jewelry designer in which they can edit the product's appearance. I'm not sure if these "designer pages" are adding unnecessary and potentially damaging duplicate content but it's certainly a possibility. There are many items on this site that are similar to one another but not the same. The product description tend to use the same phrases over and over again - words like crystal, Swarovski, beaded, design it, customize, change, pearl, glass beads, iridescent, pearl, drop earrings are used a lot. What I'm stuck on is whether or not I should be focusing on a content duplication issue as the primary SEO problem or if there is something bigger. Thank you for any assistance you can provide!
On-Page Optimization | | rja2140 -
Should I link my 3 E-Commerce sites?
Good Morning, I have 3 E-Commerce sites that all sell the same products, but have unique content on them (unique text, unique urls, same products).... Up until now, I have not put any links from one to any of the others... I just started to wonder about that since these are all related to the same industry, and are owned by 1 company, what would be the downside to linking them... Does anyone have any advice on if I should link to each site from the other 2 sites? Also, if you think I should be linking them, please advise how you would do it (on which pages, how many links, anchor texts, etc...) Thanks a lot!
On-Page Optimization | | Prime850 -
Large Site - Advice on Subdomaining
I have a large news site - over 1 million pages (have already deleted 1.5 million) Google buries many of our pages, I'm ready to try subdomaining http://bit.ly/dczF5y There are two types of content - news from our contributors, and press releases. We have had contracts with the big press release companies going back to 2004/5. They push releases to us by FTP or we pull from their server. These are then processed and published. It has taken me almost 18 months, but I have found and deleted or fixed all the duplicates I can find. There are now two duplicate checking systems in place. One runs at the time the release comes in and handles most of them. The other one runs every night after midnight and finds a few, which are then handled manually. This helps fine-tune the real-time checker. Businesses often link to their release on the site because they like us. Sometimes google likes this, sometimes not. The news we process is reviews by 1,2 or 3 editors before publishing. Some of the stories are 100% unique to us. Some are from contributors who also contribute to other news sites. Our search traffic is down by 80%. This has almost destroyed us, but I don't give up easily. As I said, I've done a lot of projects to try to fix this. Not one of them has done any good, so there is something google doesn't like and I haven't yet worked it out. A lot of people have looked and given me their ideas, and I've tried them - zero effect. Here is an interesting and possibly important piece of information: Most of our pages are "buried" by google. If I dear, even for a headline, even if it is unique to us, quite often the page containing that will not appear in the SERP. The front page may show up, an index page may show up, another strong page pay show up, if that headline is in the top 10 stories for the day, but the page itself may not show up at all - UNTIL I go to the end of the results and redo the search with the "duplicates" included. Then it will usually show up, on the front page, often in position #2 or #3 According to google, there are no manual actions against us. There are also no notices in WMT that say there is a problem that we haven't fixed. You may tell me just delete all of the PRs - but those are there for business readers, as they always have been. Google supposedly wants us to build websites for readers, which we have always done, What they really mean is - build it the way we want you to do it, because we know best. What really peeves me is that there are other sites, that they consistently rank above us, that have all the same content as us, and seem to be 100% aggregators, with ads, with nothing really redeeming them as being different, so this is (I think) inconsistent, confusing and it doesn't help me work out what to do next. Another thing we have is about 7,000+ US military stories, all the way back to 2005. We were one of the few news sites supporting the troops when it wasn't fashionable to do so. They were emailing the stories to us directly, most with photos. We published every one of them, and we still do. I'm not going to throw them under the bus, no matter what happens. There were some duplicates, some due to screwups because we had multiple editors who didn't see that a story was already published. Also at one time, a system code race condition - entirely my fault, I am the programmer as well as the editor-in-chief. I believe I have fixed them all with redirects. I haven't sent in a reconsideration for 14 months, since they said "No manual spam actions found" - I don't see any point, unless you know something I don't. So, having exhausted all of the things I can think of, I'm down to my last two ideas. 1. Split all of the PRs off into subdomains (I'm ready to pull the trigger later this week) 2. Do what the other sites do, that I believe create little value, which is show only a headline and snippet and some related info and link back to the original page on the PR provider website. (I really don't want to do this) 3. Give up on the PRs and delete them all and lose another 50% of the income, which means releasing our remaining staff and upsetting all of the companies and people who linked to us. (Or find them all and rewrite them as stories - tens of thousands of them) and also throw all our alliances under the bus (I really don't want to do this) There is no guarantee this is the problem, but google won't tell me, the google forums are crap, and nobody else has given me an idea that has helped. My thought is that splitting them off into subdomains will have a number of effects. 1. Take most of the syndicated content onto subdomains, so its not on the main domain. 2. Shake up the Domain Authority 3. Create a million 301 redirects. 4. Make it obvious to the crawlers what is our news and what is PRs 5. make it easier for Google News to understand Here is what I plan to do 1. redirect all PRs to their own subdomain. pn.domain.com for PRNewswire releases bw.domain.com for Businesswire releases etc 2. Fix all references so they use the new subdomain Here are my questions - and I hope you may see something I haven't considered. 1. Do you have any experience of doing this? 2. What was the result 3. Any tips? 4. Should I put PR index pages on the subdomains too? I was originally planning to keep them on the main domain, with the individual page links pointing to the actual release on the subdomain. Obviously, I want them only in one place, but there are two types of these index pages. a) all of the releases for a particular PR company - these certainly could be on the subdomain and not on the main domain b) Various category index pages - agriculture, supermarkets, mining etc These would have to stay on the main domain because they are a mixture of different PR providers. 5. Is this a bad idea? I'm almost out of ideas. Should I add a condensed list of everything I've done already? If you are still reading, thanks for hanging in.
On-Page Optimization | | loopyal0 -
Altering site structure
I work for a business that operates several sites that were developed a very long time ago. We've been making many different changes over the past 12-18 months to improve these sites in several different ways. One area that we've never discussed or attempted is general site structure. Its pretty obvious that when the business was started they had never heard of information architecture or usability design. To make matters worse, the internal linking strategy appears to have been link everything to everything. Well after being told that it couldn't be done - I'm getting our team to say we must focus on this, if for no other reason that to help consumers figure out how to navigate through our site. Today we essentially have a series of category / information pages. In some cases, we hang more detailed topical content related to a category /informational page in a hub and spoke manner. Although remember what I said about linking everything to everything. In reality there are a series of subtopics that should been designed for every category / informational area. Instead, what happened is in some cases the subtopic is integrated into the hub or category page, in other situations is hung off the page as a spoke page and in others the subtopic isn't even covered. The plan is to standardize - each category will have 'n' subtopics (~10-12, we're still working this out). From a navigational standpoint users will be able to easily navigate both across categories as well as subtopics within a category as well as between categories within adjacent/similar subtopics. This is essentially a grid if that makes sense. The question is this - we have some keywords that do well in SEO and many many more that do not and the trend has not been our friend. We're considering keeping the URLs of the pages associated with strong keywords the same within the nav structure, even though this might mean the URL for a spoke page will be inconsistent with the spoke page name from a different category. I don't see any real danger for pages that either are not associated with any ranking keywords or only very weak keywords. Maybe I'm wrong. What things should we consider in this change? We believe that this standardization should help consumers find the information they are looking for in a much more efficient manner, so page views/visit should go up. Additionally, this prepares us for category and subtopic comparison pages and other added functionality being added in a logical manner. We also think that as we add depth about a subtopic, it will be easier for us to acquire links to our site because the subtopics within a category will appeal to different websites. This is by no means a small project. We have hundreds and hundreds of pages. Do folks think this is a worthwhile endeavor? We've spent a lot of time cleaning up H1 tags, structure of our pages, anchor tags, page load order and speed, image caching, etc. Site structure, URL length and internal link structure are essentially what is left. Once these are done we intend to really get going on better and more organized content on our site. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | Allstar1 -
Good Site Navigation verses Success
I have been experimenting with the number of links on our pages verses the number of hits we get. Success seems to be tied to having hundreds of links on a page verses ease of navigation. We have a research company that sells research on educational topics. Last November I decided to divide our category of literature research topics into 10 different subtopics and redistribute the links to the subtopic pages. The main literature research page had over 800 links on it. It was one of our top performing pages. I was hoping that by spreading the links out in logical categories i could distribute the wealth and have better navigation for the user. Now after 6 months the traffic to that page has dropped 800% and the sub-pages have only gained a very minimal percentage. Overall, the hits in the literature genre have dropped from 560 per month to around 80. Ouch! I thought Google would love this strategy, as it reduced page load time, links on a page and made the navigation logical and easier to see all available options. Not the case. Question is: Should I keep the subpages but go back and put all the links back on the main literature page, putting it back up to 800 links? Should I get rid of the subpages, because the links will all be on the main literature page if I move them? Any advice is appreciated! Karen
On-Page Optimization | | eworld0 -
Numbers above actual site content
Most pages on my website contain many numbers above the actual text on the page. This is useful for users and looks good on an actual view of the page. However, when a bot reads the page it appears as rows of numbers with a few sentences at the bottom of the page. Does having these number have a negative SEO effect? If so, should I change them to something such as an image so they aren't readable by search engines?
On-Page Optimization | | theLotter0