Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Sitemaps during a migration - which is the best way of dealing with them?
- 
					
					
					
					
 Many SEOs I know simply upload the new sitemap once the new site is launched - some keep the old site's URLs on the new sitemap (for a while) to facilitate the migration - others upload both the old and the new website together, to support the migration. Which is the best way to proceed? Thanks, Luke 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Very much appreciated CleverPhD!  
- 
					
					
					
					
 Found this while looking for a answer for another question could not find this the other day- right from the mouth of Google to not include pages that do not exist in XML sitemaps. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/10/best-practices-for-xml-sitemaps-rssatom.html URLsURLs in XML sitemaps and RSS/Atom feeds should adhere to the following guidelines: - Only include URLs that can be fetched by Googlebot. A common mistake is including URLs disallowed by robots.txt — which cannot be fetched by Googlebot, or including URLs of pages that don't exist.
 
- 
					
					
					
					
 Mate nailed it completely! 
- 
					
					
					
					
 I would say make sure that your new sitemap has all the latest URLs. The reason people say that you should have old URLs in the sitemap is so that Google can quickly crawl the old URLs to find the 301s to the new URLs. I am not convinced that this helps. Why? Google already has all your old URLs in its systems. You would be shocked how far back Google has data on your site with old URLs. I have a site that is over 10 years old and I still see URL structures referenced in Google from 7 years ago that have a 301 in place. Why is this? Google will assume that, "Well, I know that this URL is a 301 or 404, but I am going to crawl it every once in a while just to make sure the webmaster did not do this by mistake." You can notice this in Search Console error or link reports when you setup 301s or 404s, they may stay in there for months and even come back once they fall out of the error list. I had an occurrence where I had some old URLs showing up in the SERPs and various Search Console reports for a site for 2 years following proper 301 setups. Why was this happening? This is a large site and we still had some old content still linking to the old URLs. The solution was to delete the links in that old content and setup a canonical to self on all the pages to help give a definitive directive to Google. Google then finally replaced the old URLs with the new URLs in the SERPs and in the Search Console reports. The point here being that previously our site was giving signals (links) that told Google that some of the old URLs were still valid and Google was giving us the benefit of the doubt. If you want to have the new URLs seen by Google, show them in your sitemap. Google already has all the old URLs and will check them and find the 301s and fix everything. I would also recommend the canonical to self on the new pages. Don't give any signals to Google that your old URLs are still valid by linking to them in any way, especially your sitemap. I would even go so far as to reach out to any important sites that link to old URLs to ask for an updated link to your site. As I mentioned above, I do not think there is an "advantage" of getting the new URLs indexed quicker by putting old URLs in the sitemap that 301 to the new URLs. Just watch your Google Search Console crawl stats. Once you do a major overhaul, you will see Google really crawl your site like crazy and they will update things pretty quick. Putting the old URLs in the sitemap is a conflicting signal in that process and has the potential to slow Google down IMHO. 
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 ToolsChat with the community about the Moz tools. 
- 
		
		SEO TacticsDiscuss the SEO process with fellow marketers 
- 
		
		CommunityDiscuss industry events, jobs, and news! 
- 
		
		Digital MarketingChat about tactics outside of SEO 
- 
		
		Research & TrendsDive into research and trends in the search industry. 
- 
		
		SupportConnect on product support and feature requests. 
Related Questions
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Spotify XML Sitemap
 All, Working on an SEO work up for a Spotify site. Looks like they are using a sitemap that links to additional pages. A problem, none of the links are actually linked within the sitemap. This feels like a strong error. https://lubricitylabs.com/sitemap.xml Thoughts? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dmaher0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Is it best practice to have a canonical tags on all pages
 The website I'm working on has no canonical tags. There is duplicate content so rel=canonicals need adding to certain pages but is it best practice to have a tag on every page ? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ColesNathan0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		The Bad effect of Submitting Sitemap frequently?
 Hi Mozzer... so, i keep thinking of this... what is the bad effect of submitting the sitemap frequently? is it something like google would smell something suspicious and begin to decrease my website's authority? and is there any supporting articles for it? my website is an e-commerce website by the way... so please, help me with this.. Thank you 🙂 Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ricoplaza0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Is it worth creating an Image Sitemap?
 We've just installed the server side script 'XML Sitemaps' on our eCommerce site. The script gives us the option of (easily) creating an image sitemap but I'm debating whether there is any reason for us to do so. We sell printer cartridges and so all the images will be pretty dry (brand name printer cartridge in front of a box being a favourite). I can't see any potential customers to search for an image as a route in to the site and Google appears to be picking up our images on it's own accord so wonder if we'll just be crawling the site and submitting this information for no real reason. From a quality perspective would Google give us any kind of kudos for providing an Image Sitemap? Would it potentially increase their crawl frequency or, indeed, reduce the load on our servers as they wouldn't have to crawl for all the images themselves? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate
 I can't stress how little of a hardship it will be to create one of these automatically daily but am wondering if, like Meta Keywords, there is any benefit to doing so?1
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		What is the best way to get anchor text cloud in line?
 So I am working on a website, and it has been doing seo with keyword links for a a few years. The first branded terms comes in a 7% in 10th in the list on Ahefs. The keyword terms are upwards of 14%. What is the best way to get this back in line? It would take several months to build keyword branded terms to make any difference - but it is doable. I could try link removal, but less than 10% seem to actually get removed -- which won't make a difference. The disavow file doesn't really seem to do anything either. What are your suggestions? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | netviper0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
 We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external). Questions: 1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags? 2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links? Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 379seo0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Tool to check XML sitemap
 Hello, Can anyone help me finding a tool to have closer look of the XML sitemap? Tks in advance! PP Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PedroM0
- 
		
		
		
		
		
		Can a XML sitemap index point to other sitemaps indexes?
 We have a massive site that is having some issue being fully crawled due to some of our site architecture and linking. Is it possible to have a XML sitemap index point to other sitemap indexes rather than standalone XML sitemaps? Has anyone done this successfully? Based upon the description here: http://sitemaps.org/protocol.php#index it seems like it should be possible. Thanks in advance for your help! Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CareerBliss0
 
			
		 
			
		 
			
		 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				 
					
				