Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
-
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines.
Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed.Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.
-
Hey Paul
Did you get any response after tweeting Google? Thx.
-
Paul
That was an excellent response. I also appreciate you going out of your way to hit up Google directly about this as well.Yes we believe that this it is completely unnecessary to employ valuable resources to resolve a very minor issue. However our client would is going to ask us to back our argument.
Thanks again
-
As usual, Mueller's answers can be problematic because they're actually kind of vague. (e.g. his use of "if you use one of the other methods, make sure to follow those instructions separately" in that seroundtable article) Because the question asked in that article is specifically about responsive sites, non m. separate URL versions.
Here's the best I can give you... On that guidelines page you ,inked, Google specifically provides instructions for how to either include the mobile-URL versions of pages in the rel-alternate tag or by annotating the desktop sitemap to include rel-alternate info for the mobile URLS.
It does not make any mention of saying "or you can simply include the mobile URLs in the sitemap as well." Google's usually pretty good about telling us when there is more than one alternate method, while indicating which one they prefer. in this vase, I have to assume the conspicuous absence of any mention of including mobile URLs separately means it shouldn't be done.
Still conjecture, but does that make sense?
I'd definitely say it's imperative that the rel-alternate/rel-canonical treatment must be in place. Beyond that, I suspect it's a crawl budget/crawl efficiency issue, not an actual "indexing will break if mobile URLs are in sitemap" situation. As such, I wouldn't want to prioritise an expensive solution to this over whatever other more high-impact projects might be awaiting funding.
Just for the hell of it, I'll tweet at the Google guys to see if I can get a direct response to "will it cause harm" and let you know if I hear back.
I know this is just another perspective, not anything definitive, but hope it helps?
Paul
-
-
Thanks Thomas. The challenge we have is providing our client with a reputable source (not saying your not credible..lol) that states this is a negligible issue.
-
I don't believe that having the mobile urls in the sitemap is causing any issue. Due to the fact that these urls presumably can be crawled anyway on the mobile subdomain. I can't see any negative for having these urls on a sitemap.
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
-
Search Console Change of Address Tool Issue
We're currently migrating few "event" mini sites to a main site that will have a subfolder for each event.. Example:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RichardUK
newsite.com/event1 The issue is that Search console is not able to verify this kind of redirect:
example.com --> 301 --> newsite.com/event Do you know any work around for this? I was thinking of using a subdomain instead which will in turn redirect to the /event subfolder.. but with each hop it will diminish the link's strength. I prefer not to leave it as subdomain as data gets mashed up in Google Analytics with subdomains and we have seen worse ranking results with subdomains. Any help is greatly appreciated.0 -
[Very Urgent] More 100 "/search/adult-site-keywords" Crawl errors under Search Console
I just opened my G Search Console and was shocked to see more than 150 Not Found errors under Crawl errors. Mine is a Wordpress site (it's consistently updated too): Here's how they show up: Example 1: URL: www.example.com/search/adult-site-keyword/page2.html/feed/rss2 Linked From: http://an-adult-image-hosting.com/search/adult-site-keyword/page2.html Example 2 (this surprised me the most when I looked at the linked from data): URL: www.example.com/search/adult-site-keyword-2.html/page/3/ Linked From: www.example.com/search/adult-site-keyword-2.html/page/2/ (this is showing as if it's from our own site) http://a-spammy-adult-site.com/search/adult-site-keyword-2.html Example 3: URL: www.example.com/search/adult-site-keyword-3.html Linked From: http://an-adult-image-hosting.com/search/adult-site-keyword-3.html How do I address this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rmehta10 -
Mobile First Index: What Could Happen To Sites w Large Desktop but Small Mobile Sites?
I have a question about how Mobile First could affect websites with separate (and smaller) mobile vs desktop sites. Referencing this SE Roundtable article (seorountable dot com /google-mobile-first-index-22953.html), "If you have less content on your mobile version than on your desktop version - Google will probably see the less content mobile version. Google said they are indexing the mobile version first." But Google/ Gary Illyes are also on the record stating the switch to mobile-first should be minimally disruptive. Does "Mobile First" mean that they'll consider desktop URLs "second", or will they actually just completely discount the desktop site in lieu of the mobile one? In other words: will content on your desktop site that does not appear in mobile count in desktop searches? I can't find clear answer anywhere (see also: /jlh-marketing dot com/mobile-first-unanswered-questions/). Obviously the writing is on the wall (and has been for years) that responsive is the way to go moving forward - but just looking for any other viewpoints/feedback here since it can be really expensive for some people to upgrade. I'm basically torn between "okay we gotta upgrade to responsive now" and "well, this may not be as critical as it seems". Sigh... Thanks in advance for any feedback and thoughts. LOL - I selected "there may not be a right answer to this question" when submitting this to the Moz community. 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mirabile0 -
Client WIll Not Rank for Targeted KW Terms
Good Morning Mozzers, I am at a total loss. I have been working with a client in a "difficult" (to say the very least) vertical for roughly the past two years and for the life of me, cannot get these clients to rank within the top 3 for the targeted keyword terms. It seems that every time our targeted keyword begin to gain a little bit of traction and improve their ranking position, it is immediately followed by the same keywords plummeting shortly thereafter. I have done everything (in my mind) I can to try and get this client's keyword terms to rank, everything from revising the on-/off-page content, building citations, submitting the site to services like Yext, advertising on AdWords and Yelp, etc. but it doesn't seem to make any significant difference. I'm hoping that someone can offer some guidance into how I can get these clients to start ranking highly for the targeted keyword terms because I'm at a complete loss. I look forward to all of your responses! Thank you for reading. If you'd like to check out the site, the URL is: www.lawtonmd.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | maxcarnage0 -
URLs: Removing duplicate pages using anchor?
I've been working on removing duplicate content on our website. There are tons of pages created based on size but the content is the same. The solution was to create a page with 90% static content and 10% dynamic, that changed depending on the "size" Users can select the size from a dropdown box. So instead of 10 URLs, I now have one URL. Users can access a specific size by adding an anchor to the end of the URL (?f=suze1, ?f=size2) For e.g: Old URLs. www.example.com/product-alpha-size1 www.example.com/product-alpha-size2 www.example.com/product-alpha-size3 www.example.com/product-alpha-size4 www.example.com/product-alpha-size5 New URLs www.example.com/product-alpha-size1 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size2 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size3 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size4 www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?f=size5 Do search engines read the anchor or drop them? Will the rank juice be transfered to just www.example.com/product-alpha-size1?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
301 forwarding old urls to new urls - when should you update sitemap?
Hello Mozzers, If you are amending your urls - 301ing to new URLs - when in the process should you update your sitemap to reflect the new urls? I have heard some suggest you should submit a new sitemap alongside old sitemap to support indexing of new URLs, but I've no idea whether that advice is valid or not. Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Page indexed but not showing up at all in search results
I am currently working on the SEO for a roofing company. I have developed GEO targeted pages for both commercial and residential roofing (as well as attic insulation and gutters) and have hundreds of 1st page placements for the GEO targeted keywords. What is baffling me is that they are performing EXTREMELY poorly on the bigger cities, to the point of not evening showing up in the first 5 pages. I also target a page specifically for roof repair in Phoenix and it is not coming up AT ALL. This is not typically the results I get when directly targeting keywords. I'm working on implementing keyword variations as well as adding about 10 or so information pages (@ 700 words) regarding different roofing systems which I plan to cross link on the site, etc. I'm just wondering if there is a simple answer as to why the pages I want to be showing up the most are performing so poorly and what I would need to do to improve their rankings.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dogstarweb0 -
How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/). My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries. So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #). I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way? If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue. Best, -G
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Celts180