XML Sitemap & Bad Code
-
I've been creating sitemaps with XML Sitemap Generator, and have been downloading them to edit on my pc. The sitemaps work fine when viewing in a browser, but when I download and open in Dreamweaver, the urls don't work when I cut and paste them in the Firefox URL bar. I notice the codes are different. For example, an "&" is produced like this..."&". Extra characters are inserted, producing the error.
I was wondering if this is normal, because as I said, the map works fine when viewing online.
-
Thanks guys! Upon further research what's happening is "Entity Escaping", where symbols have to use a code...ie & =
&, so it's all good.
-
It's probably normal within Dreamweaver, however a browser will see the & probably like a & so that won't be a problem for Google I'd guess if you want to submit your sitemap to the search engines.
-
Dreamweaver does funky stuff when you go from visual to code. Try opening the xml sitemap in notepad and copying/pasting from there and see if you get the same problem.
But based on my experience with that site, you should be fine.
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
-
Sitemaps: Best Practice
What should and what shouldn't go in the sitemap? In particular, pages like subscribe to our newsletter/ unsubscribe to our newsletter? Is there really any benefit in highlighting those pages to the SEs? Thanks for any advice/ anecdotes 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fubra0 -
Service Area Landing Page Q&A
Good Morning, I was wondering if some one could help me out with some questions I have regarding how to make my service area landing pages rank better. A majority of them are on position 11 right now, and I feel like there might be a few minor things I might need to do to make them rank better. 1.) Meta Description - If I'm writing a meta description should I use an exact match for the keyword? Something like "Hire us to do your dry cleaning in Topeka, Kansas today." Or would I write "Topeka Kansas is in luck. We offer the best dry cleaning around" (I know this stinks from a call to action perspective, but it's the best example I could come up with off the top of my head). 2.) File Name - Would I make the name "topeka-kansas.html" or would I make it "dry-cleaning-topeka-kansas.html" 3.) H1 - should this be exactly the same as the title, or at least very close to it? 4.) Youtube Video - Would putting a youtube video on the page act as a relevancy signal to Google? 5.) Images - How many images would help on a landing page? Does having original images help more? 6.) Length of Page - Does the length of the page word wise help at all? 7.) Anything else - What other tweaks can I make to a landing page to boost its rankings? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Charles_Murdock
Charles0 -
Pagination, Canonical Tag & Best Practices
I have an eCommerce site that dynamically creates category pages, which produce canonical tags in the header. For multiple page categories, it adds the page number to the URL. For example, this category has 3 pages.... Because most categories have too many products, I can't follow Googles suggestion of creating a "view all" page. Furthermore since all these pages use the same template, I'm unable to insert a NOINDEX tag in all the pages after the first page. Also, in this scenario, I'm unable to insert the discreet code for Next/Previous, which is also suggested by Google. My only option for maintaining these dynamically generated category pages would be to hardcode the first conical tag in the template, which would then be produced on all subsequent paginated pages. Consequently, every paginated page in this category would have the same canonical tag pointing to the first page. Would this incur the wrath of Google and would I'd be better off leaving the pagination they way it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alrockn0 -
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
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
New Site Launch- Bad Rankings
So I am slightly stumped. I work on a few eCom sites and over the past few months we have been launching new products as well as some site updates/upgrades. The issue that I am having is this. Product that is actually new this season, as in we did not carry it before, is ranking fine...generally speaking we are top 3 in Google with Brand/Product name. However product that is not new, meaning it has a new color or graphic but has been in the catalog for years is not ranking. In Prior years the URL's ended with the product name, now however they have additional information added to the end for this season. Would not directing the old URL to the new URL effect the rankings of these pages? I am open to suggestions beyond redirecting as well. Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K2_Sports0 -
How do I create a XML Sitemap?
It appears that the free online tools limit the number of URLs they'll include. What tools have you had success with?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NaHoku1 -
Schema & Microdata Plugins for WordPress
Hi Mozzers- Just curious - what is everyone using for schema and microdata plugins for WordPress? I've tried a few different plugins but I'd love to hear what other Mozzers like. Thanks! LHC
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lhc670 -
Limiting URLS in the HTML Sitemap?
So I started making a sitemap for our new golf site, which has quite a few "low level" pages (about 100 for the golf courses that exist in the area, and then about 50 for course architects), etc etc. My question/open discussion is simple. In a sitemap that already has about 50 links, should we include these other low level 150 links? Of course, the link to the "Golf Courses" is there, along with a link to the "Course Architects" MAIN pages (which, subdivides on THOSE pages.) I have read the limit is around 150 links on the sitemap.html page and while it would be nice to rank long tail for the Golf Courses. All in all, our site architecture itself is easily crawlable as well. So the main question is just to include ALL the links or just the main ones? Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JamesO0