Search Console rejecting XML sitemap files as HTML files, despite them being XML
-
Hi Moz folks,
We have launched an international site that uses subdirectories for regions and have had trouble getting pages outside of USA and Canada indexed.
Google Search Console accounts have finally been verified, so we can submit the correct regional sitemap to the relevant search console account.
However, when submitting non-USA and CA sitemap files (e.g. AU, NZ, UK), we are receiving a submission error that states, "Your Sitemap appears to be an HTML page," despite them being .xml files, e.g. http://www.t2tea.com/en/au/sitemap1_en_AU.xml.
Queries on this suggest it's a W3 Cache plugin problem, but we aren't using Wordpress; the site is running on Demandware.
Can anyone guide us on why Google Search Console is rejecting these sitemap files? Page indexation is a real issue.
Many thanks in advance!
-
Thanks, both. We'll explore a better solution with Demandware.
-
agree
-
Quite sure that's the case. When I'm following the URL the site also redirects me to a normal page. What is likely is that the same thing is happening to the bots of Google.
-
Extra thought: We're wondering if it's a bigger issue involving the redirect mechanic? Currently, users from a specific country are automatically redirected to their respective locale (e.g. US users trying to access Australian URLs are redirected to /en/us/). Is there something in this where Googlebots aren't able to access AU, NZ and UK subdirectories and sitemap files because they're coming from North America?
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
-
Google Search Console - URL Parameters Tab ISSUE
Hi, Recently i removed some disallowed parameters from my robots.txt and added the setting No Url in my search console URL parameters tab (as can be seen in the image http://prntscr.com/e997o5) Today i saw the orderby parameter indexed even if the setting is to not crawl those urls. Anyone any idea why is this happening? Thank god that all those urls with parameters are canonicalised to their original url's.
Technical SEO | | dos06590 -
Meta data & xml sitemaps for mobile sites when using rel="canonical"/rel="alternate" annotations
When using rel="canonical" and rel="alternate" annotations between mobile and desktop sites (rel="canonical" on mobile, pointing to desktop, and rel="alternate" on desktop pointing to mobile), what are everyone's thoughts on using meta data on the mobile site? Is it necessary? And also, what is the common consensus on using a separate mobile xml sitemap?
Technical SEO | | 4Ps0 -
.html extension
My new client's original web developer set up many pages with .html extensions. My plan is to turn most of these into php pages. Also, I think the .html extension displaying in the browser is just ugly so I want to drop the .html extension from those pages that remain. I know how to do this with .htaccess, but my question is should I 301 redirect all the .html pages to the page without an extension. (For example, should I redirect www.example.com/page.html to www.example.com/page) I don't know how many, in any, links there are out there to these pages, but I'm guessing not many. I'm sure it's not that big a deal but I was wondering if it would be worth the time to do that for the pages I change.
Technical SEO | | Mattymar0 -
Can you have a /sitemap.xml and /sitemap.html on the same site?
Thanks in advance for any responses; we really appreciate the expertise of the SEOmoz community! My question: Since the file extensions are different, can a site have both a /sitemap.xml and /sitemap.html both siting at the root domain? For example, we've already put the html sitemap in place here: https://www.pioneermilitaryloans.com/sitemap Now, we're considering adding an XML sitemap. I know standard practice is to load it at the root (www.example.com/sitemap.xml), but am wondering if this will cause conflicts. I've been unable to find this topic addressed anywhere, or any real-life examples of sites currently doing this. What do you think?
Technical SEO | | PioneerServices0 -
.lbi file - SEO friendly or not?
Up until yesterday afternoon i had never heard of a .lbi file. It turns out it is a library file used by Adobe Dreamweaver. From what i can tell it works like a client side included but i am unsure of the technology behind it. The issue:
Technical SEO | | kchandler
When running through a recent SEO audit for a new client i found these .lbi files being used all over there site for site wide callouts and even navigation. When viewing this content through firebug or in the browser you can see the executed HTML content but when viewing the source or the page in seo-browser.com the content is nowhere to be seen. So my thought is this is not SEO friendly and is the same as displaying content in any client-side script like JavaScript or JQuery. Any feedback or thoughts on this subject would be awesome, especially if anyone has used these previously. Unfortunately i cannot share the client site but i would be more than happy to answer any questions if more detail is needed. Thanks in advance - Kyle0 -
Does Server Location have anything to do with Search Results
Good Morning Everyone... Does having a site hosted in Europe have any effect on Search Engine results in the US? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
Sitemap Creation + Site speed
Hi there, I am looking for a sitemap creation tool, so I can submit my site to Google. My site is www.vallnord.com On the other hadn I would like to speed up my web. Any tip? Regards, Guido.
Technical SEO | | SilbertAd0 -
Duplicate content issue index.html vs non index.html
Hi I have an issue. In my client's profile, I found that the "index.html" are mostly authoritative than non "index.html", and I found that www. version is more authoritative than non www. The problem is that I find the opposite situation where non "index.html" are more authoritative than "index.html" or non www more authoritative than www. My logic would tell me to still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html". Am I right? and in the case I find the opposite happening, does it matter if I still redirect the non"index.html" to "index.html"? The same question for www vs non www versions? Thank you
Technical SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0