Has important is it to set "priority" and "frequency" in sitemaps?
-
Has anyone ever done any testing on setting "priority' and "frequency" in their sitemaps? What was the result? Does specifying priority or frequency help quite a bit?
-
This is basically a way for sites to try to control the performance hit of being crawled too often by the bots. I don't think its ever worked to get a site deemed unimportant by the engines crawled more often than they would otherwise. If your site is not getting slammed by bots (and if it is, you probably have bigger performance problems to go after first) then, like Ryan Kent said, there isn't much use for these.
-
Has important is it to set "priority" and "frequency" in sitemaps?
Google adheres to the protocol published on sitemaps.org. The details on those tags can be found here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.php
In short, the settings are hints, not directives. Google MAY consider or disregard the information. I do not place any importance on this information. A properly developed site does not even require a sitemap submission at all. The primary reason I submit sitemaps is the software which creates the HTML sitemap also generates an XML sitemap and it is a one-time setup to automatically submit the sitemap to Google and Bing. Otherwise, I am not aware of any real benefit of submitting sitemaps for modern SEO.
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
-
Sitemap indexing
Hi everyone, Here's a duplicate content challenge I'm facing: Let's assume that we sell brown, blue, white and black 'Nike Shoes model 2017'. Because of technical reasons, we really need four urls to properly show these variations on our website. We find substantial search volume on 'Nike Shoes model 2017', but none on any of the color variants. Would it be theoretically possible to show page A, B, C and D on the website and: Give each page a canonical to page X, which is the 'default' page that we want to rank in Google (a product page that has a color selector) but is not directly linked from the site Mention page X in the sitemap.xml. (And not A, B, C or D). So the 'clean' urls get indexed and the color variations do not? In other words: Is it possible to rank a page that is only discovered via sitemap and canonicals?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Adriaan.Multiply1 -
Sitemaps and dynamic pages
Hi all, I have a gigantic website and they are adding another subdirectory to it. My question is regarding html sitemaps for better optimisation. 1. Should a keyword focussed front end (html) sitemap be made for all the dynamic URLs or 2. Should a category focussed front end (html) sitemap be made for all the dynamic URLs what would be your approach to doing a sitemap with thousands of pages with a structure like Directory > Sub directory > Subdirectory > Files
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Malika10 -
XML sitemaps questions
Hi All, My developer has asked me some questions that I do not know the answer to. We have both searched for an answer but can't find one.... So, I was hoping that the clever folk on Moz can help!!! Here is couple questions that would be nice to clarify on. What is the actual address/name of file for news xml. Can xml site maps be generated on request? Consider following scenario: spider requests http://mypage.com/sitemap.xml which permanently redirects to extensionless MVC 4 page http://mypage.com/sitemapxml/ . This page generates xml. Thank you, Amelia
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommT0 -
Broken sitemaps vs no sitemaps at all?
The site I am working on is enormous. We have 71 sitemap files, all linked to from a sitemap index file. The sitemaps are not up to par with "best practices" yet, and realistically it may be another month or so until we get them cleaned up. I'm wondering if, for the time being, we should just remove the sitemaps from Webmaster Tools altogether. They are currently "broken", and I know that sitemaps are not mandatory. Perhaps they're doing more harm than good at this point? According to Webmaster Tools, there are 8,398,082 "warnings" associated with the sitemap, many of which seem to be related to URLs being linked to that are blocked by robots.txt. I was thinking that I could remove them and then keep a close eye on the crawl errors/index status to see if anything changes. Is there any reason why I shouldn't remove these from Webmaster Tools until we get the sitemaps up to par with best practices?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edmundsseo0 -
Google SERPs do not display "cached"
When I am signed in with Google and searching sites, the snippets do not display the "cached" link. Not good since I am trying to see when a particular page was crawled. If I login to another server that I never use to browse and search from there the "cache" link does show up. Assumption: google knows who I am on my machine and is "helping" me.......but is there an easy way to turn this help off?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eyauuk0 -
Need a mobile XML Sitemap?
We're going to be running our mobile site on the same domain and generating content for users on mobile devices with style sheets (will not have m.domain). The content on our URLs will be the exact same. My question is if we need to create a mobile XML Sitemap to submit to the search engines. Do we need to create the Sitemap, that will contain the exact same URLs as our non-mobile Sitemap, and just include <mobile><mobile>tags around the URLs? Or do we need to create a mobile Sitemap at all to alert the search engines that we have mobile content?</mobile></mobile> Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bonnierSEO0 -
<rel canonical="">and Query Strings</rel>
How are you supposed to <rel canonical="" tag="">a page with a query string that has already been indexed? It's not like you're serving that page from a CMS where you have an original page with content to add to the head tag.</rel> For example.... Original Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php Query String Page = http://www.example.com/about/products.php?src=FrontDoorBox Would adding the <rel canonical="" tag="">to the original page, referencing itself, be the solution so that the next time the original page is crawled, the bot will know that the previously indexed URL with query string should actually be the "original"? That's the only solution I can come up with because there's no way to find the query string rendered page to tag with the canonical.....</rel>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Yun0 -
Setting up .org and .net supplements
To help with DSEO we are consdering setting up a .org and .net of our brand name (the primary site runs off .com obviously). We are thinking that the net/org sites will: Be one page that is optimized as we need (standard stuff like copy, title, alt-tags, meta desc, etc.) Will be hosted on separate C-blocks Will have a google sitemap that is submitted to Google Webmaster Central Provides a link back to .com Any other suggestions? Are separate C-blocks necessary? Thanks, b
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bcmull0