Google Not Indexing XML Sitemap Images
-
Hi Mozzers,
We are having an issue with our XML sitemap images not being indexed.
The site has over 39,000 pages and 17,500 images submitted in GWT. If you take a look at the attached screenshot, 'GWT Images - Not Indexed', you can see that the majority of the pages are being indexed - but none of the images are.
The first thing you should know about the images is that they are hosted on a content delivery network (CDN), rather than on the site itself. However, Google advice suggests hosting on a CDN is fine - see second screenshot, 'Google CDN Advice'. That advice says to either (i) ensure the hosting site is verified in GWT or (ii) submit in robots.txt. As we can't verify the hosting site in GWT, we had opted to submit via robots.txt.
There are 3 sitemap indexes: 1) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap_index.xml, 2) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/listings.xml and 3) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/plants.xml.
Each sitemap index is split up into often hundreds or thousands of smaller XML sitemaps. This is necessary due to the size of the site and how we have decided to pull URLs in. Essentially, if we did it another way, it may have involved some of the sitemaps being massive and thus taking upwards of a minute to load.
To give you an idea of what is being submitted to Google in one of the sitemaps, please see view-source:http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/4/listings.xml?page=1.
Originally, the images were SSL, so we decided to reverted to non-SSL URLs as that was an easy change. But over a week later, that seems to have had no impact. The image URLs are ugly... but should this prevent them from being indexed?
The strange thing is that a very small number of images have been indexed - see http://goo.gl/P8GMn. I don't know if this is an anomaly or whether it suggests no issue with how the images have been set up - thus, there may be another issue.
Sorry for the long message but I would be extremely grateful for any insight into this. I have tried to offer as much information as I can, however please do let me know if this is not enough.
Thank you for taking the time to read and help.
Regards,
Mark
-
Hi Mark,
I'm just following the thread as I have a similar problem. Would you mind sharing your results from the tests?
Thanks,
Bogdan -
Thanks Everett - that's exactly what I intend to do.
We will be testing two new sitemaps with 100 x URLs each. 1. With just the file extension removed and 2. With the entire cropping part of the URL removed, as suggested by Matt.
Will be interested to see whether just one or both of the sitemaps are successful. Will of course post the outcome here, for anyone who might have this problem in future.
-
It isn't always that simple. Maybe commas don't present a problem on their own. Maybe double file extensions don't present a problem on their own. Maybe a CDN doesn't present a problem on its own. Maybe very long, complicated URLs don't present a problem on their own.
You have all of these. Together, in any combination, they could make indexation of your images a problem for Google.
Just test it out on a few. Get rid of the file extension. If that doesn't work, get rid of the comma. That is all you can do. Start with whatever is easiest for the developer to implement, and test it out on a few before rolling it out across all of your images.
-
Cheers for that mate - especially the useful Excel formula.
I am going to try a few things in isolation so that we can accurately say which element/s caused the issue.
Thanks again, mate.
-
Ignore the developer - what worked for one doesn't mean it'll work for you
The easiest way to test this is to manually create a sitemap with 100 or so 'clean' image URLs. Just pull the messy ones into excel and use the formula below to create a clean version (Use A1 for messy, B1 for formula).
Good luck mate.
=CONCATENATE("image:imageimage:lochttp://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/",RIGHT(A1,LEN(A1)-(FIND("",(SUBSTITUTE(A1,"/","",(IF(LEN(TRIM(A1))=0,0,LEN(TRIM(A1))-LEN(SUBSTITUTE(A1,"/",""))))))))),"</image:loc></image:image>")
-
Thanks for the responses guys, much appreciated.
In terms of the commas, that was something that I put to the developer, however he was able to come back with examples where this has clearly not been an issue - e.g. apartable.com have commas in their URLs and use the same CDN (Coudinary).
However, I agree with you that double file extension could be the issue. I may have to wait until next week to find out as the developer is working on another project, but will post the outcome here once I know.
Thank you again for the help!
-
Hello Edlondon,
I think you're probably answering your own question here. Google typically doesn't have any problem indexing images served from a CDN. However, I've seen Google have problems with commas in the URL at times. Typically it happens when other elements in the URL are also troublesome, such as your double file extension.
Are you able to rename the files to get rid of the superfluous .jpg extension? If so, I'd recommend trying it out on a few dozen images. We could come up with a lot of hypothesis, but that would be the one I'd test first.
-
Hmmm I step off here, never used cloudinary.com or even heard of them. I personally use NetDNA, with pull zones (which means that they load the image/css/js from your origin and store a version on their servers) while handling cropping/resizing from my own end (via PHP and then loading that image, example: http://cdn.fulltraffic.net/blog/thumb/58x58/youtube-video-xQmQeKU25zg.jpg try changing the 58x58 to another size and my server will handle the crop/resize while NetDNA will serve it and store for future loads).
-
Found one of the sites with the same Cloudinary URLs with commas - apartable.com
See Google image results: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:apartable.com&tbm=isch
Their images appear to be well indexed. One thing I have noticed, however, is that we often have .jpg twice in the image URL. E.g.:
- http://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/c_crop,g_north,h_0.9,w_1.0/c_fill,d_no_image_icon-720x720**.jpg**,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_900/v1352574983/oyfos82vwvmxdx91hxaw**.jpg**
- http://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/c_crop,g_north,h_0.9,w_1.0/c_fill,d_no_image_icon-720x720**.jpg**,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_900/v1352574989/s09cv3krfn7gbyvw3r2y**.jpg**
- http://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/c_crop,g_north,h_0.9,w_1.0/c_fill,d_no_image_icon-720x720**.jpg**,g_center,h_407,q_80,w_407/v1352575010/rl7cl4xi0timza1sgzxj**.jpg**
Wonder if that is confusing Google? If so, none of this is consistent, as they do have a few images indexed with exactly the same kind of URL as those listed above.
-
Thought I had them on email but must be within our fairly cumbersome Skype thread... let me have a dig through when I get chance and I'll post them up here.
-
Hmmmm, okay... Could you post the examples they gave, and an example page where the images are located on the site?
-
Hi Matt,
Thought I should let you know that (i) the X-Robots-Tag was not set, so that's not the issue and (ii) the URLs, although ugly, are not the issue either. We had a couple of examples of websites with the same thing (I'm told the commas facilitate on-the-fly sizing and cropping) and their images were indexed fine.
So, back to the drawing board for me! Thank you very much for the suggestions, really do appreciate it.
Mark
-
Hmm interesting - we hadn't thought of the X-Robots-Tag http header. I'm going to fire that over to the developer now.
As for the URLs, they are awful! But I am told that this is not a problem - but perhaps this is worth re-chasing up as other solutions have, so far, been unfruitful.
Thanks for taking the time to help, Matt - I'll let you know if that fixes it! Unfortunately it could be another week before I know, as the developer is currently working on another project so any changes may be early-mid next week.
Thanks again...
-
This is a bit of a long shot but if the files have been uploaded using their API it may have been that the 'X-Robots-Tag' http header is set to no-index...
Also, those URLs don't look great with the commas in them. Have you tried doing a small subset that just has the image id (e.g. http://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/nprvu0z6ri227cgnpmqc.jpg)?
Matt
-
Hi Federico,
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.
To answer your question, we are using http://cloudinary.com/. So, taking one of the examples from the XML sitemap I posted above, an example of an image URL is http://res.cloudinary.com/greenplantswap/image/upload/c_crop,g_north,h_0.9,w_1.0/c_fill,d_no_image_icon-720x720.jpg,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_900/v1352575097/nprvu0z6ri227cgnpmqc.jpg (what a lovely URL!).
I had a look at http://res.cloudinary.com/robots.txt and it seems that they are not blocking anything - the disallow instruction is commented out. I assume that is indeed the robots.txt I should be looking at?
Assuming it is, this does not appear to get to the bottom of why the images are not being indexed.
Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated - we have 17k unique images that could be driving traffic and this is a key way that people find our kind of website.
Thanks,
Mark
-
Within that robot.txt file on the CDN (which one are you using?) have you set to allow Google to index them?
Most CDNs I know allows you to block engines via the robots.txt to avoid bandwidth consumption.
In the case you are using NetDNA (MaxCDN) or the like, make sure your robots file isn't disallowing robots to crawl.
We are using a CDN too to deliver images and static files and all of them are being indexed, we tested disallowing crawlers but it caused a lot of warnings, so instead we no allow all of them to read and index content (is a small price to pay to have your content indexed).
Hope that helps!
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
-
Only a fraction of the sitemap get indexed
I have a large international website. The content is subdivided in 80 countries, with largely the same content all in English. The URL structure is: https://www.baumewatches.com/XX/page (where XX is the country code)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lvet
Language annotations hreflang seem to be set up properly In the Google Search Console I registered: https://www.baumewatches.com the 80 instances of https://www.baumewatches.com/XX in order to geo target the directories for each country I have declared a single global sitemap for https://www.baumewatches.com (https://www.baumewatches.com/sitemap_index.xml structured in a hierarchical way) The problem is that the site has been online already for more than 8 months and only 15% of the sitemap URLs have been indexed, with no signs of new indexations in the last 3 months. I cannot think about a solution for this.0 -
International XML Sitemaps - Standalone, or Integrate into Existing XML Sitemap?
Hi there, We understand that hreflang tagging can be incorporated into an existing XML sitemap. That said, is there any inherent issue with having two sitemaps - your regular XML sitemap plus an international XML sitemap which lists off many of the same URLs as your original XML sitemap? For example, one of our clients has an XML sitemap file they don't want to have to edit, but we want to implement international hreflang xml sitemaps for them. Can we add an "English" XML sitemap with the proper hreflang tagging even though this new sitemap contains many duplicates as the existing XML sitemap file? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FPD_NYC0 -
Top-10 ranked site dropping in/out of Google index?
I work for a company that makes an important product in a category. The company has a website (www.company.org); the product is at www.company.org/product. We recently (early May) redesigned and rearchitected the product site for SEO purposes. The company site talks about the category a bit (imagine the Colgate site; it talks about "toothpaste" a bit). The blog (blog.company.org/product) also talks about the category quite a bit (and links to the company site of course). The product is a major product in the category, among the top 3. The site and blog have been around for 15+ years. The site has appx. a billion backlinks, most branded links to the product. It's in the top 50 highest ranked sites among all sites on the internet in the ahrefs rank index. Imagine you are searching for our product category, "category". If you search for "category" in Bing today, my company's site is the 3rd result, and it's the 1st result from a company that makes a product in this category. If you search for "category" in Google today, our site is not in the top 150 results. In fact, the site keeps dropping out of Google's index. (See attached for what that looks like in the search console.) What might cause a site to jump from "ranked in top 10" to "not ranked" in Google -- back and forth every couple of days? Penalties? Our recent (early May) site rearchitecture? We're not making giant, index-shifting changes every day. wE0Bn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | hoosteeno0 -
How to stop URLs that include query strings from being indexed by Google
Hello Mozzers Would you use rel=canonical, robots.txt, or Google Webmaster Tools to stop the search engines indexing URLs that include query strings/parameters. Or perhaps a combination? I guess it would be a good idea to stop the search engines crawling these URLs because the content they display will tend to be duplicate content and of low value to users. I would be tempted to use a combination of canonicalization and robots.txt for every page I do not want crawled or indexed, yet perhaps Google Webmaster Tools is the best way to go / just as effective??? And I suppose some use meta robots tags too. Does Google take a position on being blocked from web pages. Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Should I include URLs that are 301'd or only include 200 status URLs in my sitemap.xml?
I'm not sure if I should be including old URLs (content) that are being redirected (301) to new URLs (content) in my sitemap.xml. Does anyone know if it is best to include or leave out 301ed URLs in a xml sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jonathan.Smith0 -
Why Google isn't indexing my images?
Hello, on my fairly new website Worthminer.com I am noticing that Google is not indexing images from my sitemap. Already 560 images submitted and Google indexed only 3 of them. Altough there is more images indexed they are not indexing any new images, and I have no idea why. Posts, categories and other urls are indexing just fine, but images not. I am using Wordpress and for sitemaps Wordpress SEO by yoast. Am I missing something here? Why Google won't index my images? Thanks, I appreciate any help, David xv1GtwK.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Worthminer1 -
Images not appearing in Google Images SERPS
Hi there We pushed a new version of our website live more than 6 months ago. So far, none of the images that are in the product gallery on this page http://www.ingleandrhode.co.uk/bespoke-rings/inspiration/ are appearing in the Google Images SERPS (I tested this by searching Google Images for "site:www.ingleandrhode.co.uk"). I understand that the gallery uses Javascript, so Googlebot doesn't see the image files in the HTML, but in Webmaster Tools, if I "fetch as Google" with rendering, this suggests that Googlebot does see the gallery images. My website developer tried adding an image sitemap about two weeks ago, which is being indexed, but so far this hasn't made any difference. Any suggestions on what needs to be done for these gallery images to start appearing in Google Images SERPS? Many thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TimIngle0 -
Will blocking google and SE's from indexing images hurt SEO?
Hi, We have a bit of a problem where on a website we are managing, there are thousands of "Dynamically" re-sized images. These are stressing out the server as on any page there could be upto 100 dynamically re-sized images. Google alone is indexing 50,000 pages a day, so multiply that by the number of images and it is a huge drag on the server. I was wondering if it maybe an idea to blog Robots (in robots.txt) from indexing all the images in the image file, to reduce the server load until we have a proper fix in place. We don't get any real value from having our website images in "Google Images" so I am wondering if this could be a safe way of reducing server load? Are there any other potential SEO issues this could cause?? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James770