Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
-
Hi All,
I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us.
It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all
Common beliefs:
-
Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic.
-
A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling.
-
In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing.
-
If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour.
These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed.
Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed.
Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited.
It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling.
This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues.
Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all?
If you are interested, our map looks like this :
http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml
Many thanks
Paul
-
-
44 relates to the number of pages with the same urls as in your sitemap - it is not everything that is index. Your old site is still indexed and being found, as Google visits those pages and gets redirected to a new page it is likely that number will increase (from 44) and the number of old indexed will decrease.
Google doesn't index sites on a one-off go around because then if may take say 4 months to come back and index again and if you've a new important page that gets lots of links and you don't get indexed and ranked for it because you've not been visited you wouldn't be happy. Also if this was done on every site it would take forever and take much more resources than even google has. it is annoying but you've just got to grin and bear it - at least you old site is still ranking and being found.
-
Thanks Andy,
What I dont get, is why Google would index in this way. I can understand why they would weight the importance of a page based on the number/strength of incoming links but not the decision to index it at all when lead in by a sitemap.
I just get a little frustrated when Google offers you seemingly definitive stats only to find they are so vague and mysterious they have little to no value. We should have 1400+ pages indexed, we clearly have more than 44 indexed ... what on earth does the number 44 relate to?
-
I think that as your sitemap reflect your new urls and this is what the index is based on you are likely to have more indexed from what you say. I would suggest going to "indexed status" under health of GWT and click total index and ever crawled, this may help clear this up.
-
I experienced this issue with sandboxed websites.
Market your products and in a few months every page should be in Google's index.
Cheers.
-
Thanks for the quick responses.
We had a bit of a URL reshuffle recently to make them a little more informative and to prevent each page URL terminating with "product.aspx". But that was around a month ago. Prior to that, we were around 40% indexed for pages (from the sitemap section of WM tools), and always zero for images.
So given that we clearly have more than 44 pages indexed by Google, what do you think that figure actually means?
-
dealing with your indexing issue first - depending on when you submitted depends how soon those pages may be indexed. I say "may" because a sitemap (yes answering another question) is just an indicator of "i have these pages" it does not mean they will be indexed - indeed unless you've a small website you will never have 100% indexation in my experience.
Spiders (search robots) index / visit a website / page via another link. They follow links to a page from around the web, or the site itself. The more links from around the web the quicker you will get indexed. (this explains why if you've 10,000 pages you won't ever get a link from other websites to them all and so they won't all get indexed). This means if you've a web page that gets a ton of links it will be indexed sooner than those with just 1 link - assuming all links are equal (which they aren't).
Spiders are not cyclic in their searching, it's very ad-hoc based on links in your site and other sites linking to you. A spider won't be sent to spider every page on your site - it will do a small amount at a time, this is likely why 44 pages are indexed and not more at this point.
A sitemap is (as i say) an indicator of pages in your site, the importance of them and when they were updated / created. it's not really a definitive structure - it's more of a reference guide. Think of it as you being the guide on a bus tour of a city, the search engine is your passenger you are pointing out places of interest and every so often it will see something it wan't to see and get off to look, but it may take many trips to get off at every stop.
Finally, Canonicals are a great way to clear up duplicate content issues. They aren't 100% successful but they do help - especially if you are using dynamic urls (such as paginating category pages).
hope that helps
-
I see your frustration, how long ago did you submit these site maps? Are we talking a couple of weeks or a couple of days/ a day? As I've seen myself, Google is not that fast at calculating the nr of pages indexed (definitely not within GWT). Mostly within a couple of days/ within a week Google largely increased the nr of pages indexed.
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
-
No-Indexing on Ecommerce site
Hi Our site has a lot of similar/lower quality product pages which aren't a high priority - so these probably won't get looked at in detail to improve performance as we have over 200,000 products . Some of them do generate a small amount of revenue, but an article I read suggested no-indexing pages which are of little value to improve site performance & overall structure. I wanted to find out if anyone had done this and what results they saw? Will this actually improve rankings of our focus areas? It makes me a bit nervous to just block pages so any advice is appreciated 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Fix Google Index error
I changed my blog URL structure Can Someone please let me how to solve this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Michael.Leonard0 -
Sitemap Priority and Recency
Perhaps more of a discussion here than a definite answer, but we are looking at making periodic changes to the priority and recency of our sitemap pages, but would have to repopulate that information each time our plugin updates for our WordPress site. Is this something that is even worth doing or are these updates not impactful enough to merit adding it to our process? Thanks all!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReunionMarketing0 -
How to Index Faster?
Hello, I have a new website and updated fresh content regularly. My indexing status is very slow. When I search how to improve my indexing rate by Google, I found most of the members of Moz community replied there is no certain technique to improve your indexing. Apart from this you should keep posting fresh content more and more and wait for Google Indexing. Some of them asked for submitting sitemap and share posts on Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus. Well the above comments are from the year of 2012. I'm curious to know is there any new technique or methods are used to improve indexing rate? Need your suggestions! Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TopLeagueTechnologies0 -
Sitemap.xml
Looking for a discussion for using sitemap.xml We have used them for years and I still see that Google has an area to submit your sitemap to but from everything I research, including Google, sitemaps seem to now-a-days be almost useless. What do you think and what has your research shown? Thanks everybody! Charles Mazzini
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seomozinator0 -
Does Google index more than three levels down if the XML sitemap is submitted via Google webmaster Tools?
We are building a very big ecommerce site. The site has 1000 products and has many categories/levels. The site is still in construccion so you cannot see it online. My objective is to get Google to rank the products (level 5) Here is an example level 1 - Homepage - http://vulcano.moldear.com.ar/ Level 2 - http://vulcano.moldear.com.ar/piscinas/ Level 3 - http://vulcano.moldear.com.ar/piscinas/electrobombas-para-piscinas/ Level 4 - http://vulcano.moldear.com.ar/piscinas/electrobombas-para-piscinas/autocebantes.html/ Level 5 - Product is on this level - http://vulcano.moldear.com.ar/piscinas/electrobombas-para-piscinas/autocebantes/autocebante-recomendada-para-filtros-vc-10.html Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carla_Dawson0 -
Is there anything wrong with this 301 redirect?
I'll keep this one short and sweet 🙂 Many moons ago we used to have several different methods of sorting our products and this change in sort order was achieved by having ?dispmode=list or ?dispmode=grid after the product URL. Best part of a year ago we decided to scrap this feature and 301'd all the ?dispmode URL's back to the base URL. The funny thing is that Google don't seem to have dropped a single one of the old URL's from their index and a search for site:www.refreshcartridges.co.uk dispmode returns almost 8,000 results. This isn't a massive problem but I'd have expected in the past year they'd have picked up on a couple of the 301's and would have started removing the old results. I'd hate to think we were getting any kind of penalisation for duplicate pages. I know the answer to this question is going to be 'just be patient, the old results will disappear' but just to ensure we're not missing anything stupid. I'd really appreciate it if someone could check out www.refreshcartridges.co.uk/brother-c-223.html?dispmode=list to confirm there's nothing more we could be doing to get these old results removed from the index. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Why do my https pages index while noindexed?
I have some tag pages on one of my sites that I meta noindexed. This worked for the http version, which they are canonical'd to but now the https:// version is indexing. The https version is both noindexed and has a canonical to the http version, but they still show up! I even have wordpress set up to redirect all https: to http! For some reason these pages are STILL showing in the SERPS though. Any experience or advice would be greatly appreciated. Example page: https://www.michaelpadway.com/tag/insurance-coverage/ Thanks all!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarloSchneider0