Editing A Sitemap
-
Would there be any positive effect from editing a site map down to a more curated list of pages that perform, or that we hope they begin to perform, in organic search?
A site I work with has a sitemap with about 20,000 pages that is automatically created out of a Drupal plugin.
Of those pages, only about 10% really produce out of search. There are old sections of the site that are thin, obsolete, discontinued and/or noindexed that are still on the sitemap.
For instance, would it focus Google's crawl budget more efficiently or have some other effect?
Your thoughts? Thanks! Best... Darcy
-
Hi Darcy
Looking at what has been mentioned previously I would agree with the train of thought that a more focussed sitemap would generally be advantageous.
Andrew
-
Hi Dmitrii,
Always fun to watch Matt's Greatest Hits, in this example the value of making things better.
I guess the make better or delete seems super black and white to me.
Economically, who is able to make thousands of pages dramatically better with compelling original content? So, instead, the only other option is apparently radical elective surgery and massive amputation? I guess I'd choose the chemo first and don't really see what the downside is for noindex/follow and exclude from the sitemap.
Anyway, thanks again! Best... Darcy
-
- I really read the above linked post differently than Google saying "just delete it."
Well, here is a video from Matt Cutts about thin content. In this particular video he's talking about websites, which already took hit for thin content, but in your case it's the same, since you're trying to prevent it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-obcXkyA4&t=322So, there are two options he is talking about: delete or make it better. From your previous responses I understand that making it better is not an option, so there is only one option left
As for link juice thorough those pages. If those pages have good amount of links, traffic and are quite popular on your website, then surely DON'T delete them, but rather make them better. However, I understood that those pages are not popular or have much traffic, so, option two
-
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the message.
To answer your question, part of the reason is link juice via a noindex/follow and then there are some pages that serve a very very narrow content purpose, but have absolutely no life in search.
All things being equal, do you think a smaller, more focused, sitemap is generally an advantage? In the extreme and on other sites I've seen sitemaps with noindexed pages on them.
Thanks... Darcy
-
Thanks for the suggestion, Andrew.
With setting priority or not in a sitemap, do you think a smaller, more focused, sitemap is generally an advantage?
Thanks... Darcy
-
Thomas & Dmitrii,
Thanks for the message. With all do respect, I really read the above linked post differently than Google saying "just delete it."
Also, I don't see how deleting it preserves whatever link juice those pages had, as opposed to a "noindex, follow" and taking them out of the sitemap.
Finally, I don't necessarily equate all of Google's suggestions as synonymous with a "for best effect in search." I assume their suggestions mean, "it's best for Google if you..."
Thanks, again!
Best... Darcy
-
You misunderstand the meaning of that article.
"...that when you do block thin or bad content, Google prefers when you use the noindex over 404ing the page..."
They are talking about the walk around the problem of blocking pages INSTEAD of removing them.
So, if for whatever reason you don't want to delete a page and just put a 404 status on it, it's worse than putting noindex on it. Basically, what they're saying is:
- if you have thin content, DELETE it;
- if for whatever reason you don't want to delete it, put NOINDEX on it.
P.S. My suggestion still stays the same. Delete all bad content and, if you really want, put 410 gone status for that deleted content for Google to understand immediately that those pages are deleted forever, not inaccessible by mistake or something.
Hope this makes sense
.
-
Darcy,
Whilst noindex would be a good solution, if the page has no benefit why would you noindex instead of deleting it?
-
Dmitrii & Thomas,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Removal would be one way to go. I note with some interest this post:
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-block-thin-content-use-noindex-over-404s-21011.html
According to that, removal would be the third thing after making it better and noindexing.
With thousands of pages, making it better is not really an option.
Best... Darcy
-
Hi Darcy
I don't know about scaling the sitemap down but you could make use of an area of the sitemap to optimise and make it a crawl more efficient.
The area in question is the Priority area that basically tells the search engines which pages on your site are the most important. The theory is that pages with a higher priority (say 100%) are more likely to get indexed by the search engines than pages with a lower priority of say (10%), although not everyone in the industry agrees.
-
"There are old sections of the site that are thin, obsolete, discontinued and/or noindexed that are still on the sitemap."
Why not remove these from the site?
I personally believe that it'll have a positive impact, as you're submitting this sitemap to Google, you're giving it a way of going through your whole site, so why would you give it low quality pages. You want to provide Google (and your users) the best possible experience, so if you've got out of date pages, update them or if they're not relevant delete them, a user who lands on this page anyway would just bounce because it's not relevant anymore.
If these out of date pages can't be found by crawling, then 100% it's best to craft your sitemap to show the best pages.
-
hi there.
Of those pages, only about 10% really produce out of search. There are old sections of the site that are thin, obsolete, discontinued and/or noindexed that are still on the sitemap.
Have you considered removing those pages/sections, rather than altering the sitemap? It would make more sense I think.
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
-
Can anyone help me diagnose an indexing/sitemap issue on a large e-commerce site?
Hey guys. Wondering if someone can help diagnose a problem for me. Here's our site: https://www.flagandbanner.com/ We have a fairly large e-commerce site--roughly 23,000 urls according to crawls using both Moz and Screaming Frog. I have created an XML sitemap (using SF) and uploading to Webmaster Tools. WMT is only showing about 2,500 urls indexed. Further, WMT is showing that Google is indexing only about 1/2 (approx. 11,000) of the urls. Finally (to add even more confusion), when doing a site search on Google (site:) it's only showing about 5,400 urls found. The numbers are all over the place! Here's the robots.txt file: User-agent: *
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webrocket
Allow: /
Disallow: /aspnet_client/
Disallow: /httperrors/
Disallow: /HTTPErrors/
Disallow: /temp/
Disallow: /test/ Disallow: /i_i_email_friend_request
Disallow: /i_i_narrow_your_search
Disallow: /shopping_cart
Disallow: /add_product_to_favorites
Disallow: /email_friend_request
Disallow: /searchformaction
Disallow: /search_keyword
Disallow: /page=
Disallow: /hid=
Disallow: /fab/* Sitemap: https://www.flagandbanner.com/images/sitemap.xml Anyone have any thoughts as to what our problems are?? Mike0 -
What’s the best way to handle multiple website languages in terms of metatags that should be used and pages sent on our sitemap?
Hey everyone, Has anyone here worked with SEO + website translations? When should we use canonical or alternate tag if we want the user to find our page on the language he used on Google? Should we send all pages on all the different locales on the sitemap? Looking forward to hearing from you! Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | allanformigoni0 -
SITEMAP - Does <changefreq>and <image:title>have any apreciable effect?</image:title></changefreq>
Hi everyone. It was hard to find some actual evidence that some of the atributes to be declared in a sitemap have some real impact.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gaston Riera
Particularly, im interested in these two: <changefreq></changefreq> and**image:title</image:title>** I've used them in a few cases just to check their effect and couldnt see any.
Do you have any experience with these? Or any other atribute that might be helpful, in order to create a more accurate and effective sitemap? Also, this could be a great topic to create a new Moz Blog post, the one about sitemap is 8years old.0 -
HTML or XML sitemap - benefits
Hi all, Can I use only HTML sitemap or I should use both versions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tormar
How much I would lose in case when I would lose only HTML sitemap, without XML sitemap? Thank you.0 -
404 Errors with my RSS Feed/sitemap
In my google webmasters I just started getting 404 errors that I'm not sure how to redirect. I'm getting quite a few that are ending in /feed/ for instance /nyc-accident-injury/feed/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jsmythd
contact-us-thank-you/feed/ and then also a problem with my sitemap I guess? With /site-map/?postsort=tags The domain is pulversthompson.com0 -
Subdomain Blog Sitemap link - Add it to regular domain?
Example of setup:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EEE3
www.fancydomain.com
blog.fancydomain.com Because of certain limitations, I'm told we can't put our blogs at the subdirectory level, so we are hosting our blogs at the subdomain level (blog.fancydomain.com). I've been asked to incorporate the blog's sitemap link on the regular domain, or even in the regular domain's sitemap. 1. Putting the a link to blog.fancydomain.com/sitemap_index.xml in the www.fancydomain.com/sitemap.xml -- isn't this against sitemap.org protocol? 2. Is there even a reason to do this? We do have a link to the blog's home page from the www.fancydomain.com navigation, and the blog is set up with its sitemap and link to the sitemap in the footer. 3. What about just including a text link "Blog Sitemap" (linking to blog.fancydomain.com/sitemap_index.html) in the footer of the www.fancydomain.com (adjacent to the text link "Sitemap" which already exists for the www.fancydomain.com's sitemap. Just trying to make sense of this, and figure out why or if it should be done. Thanks!0 -
Sitemap Dissappearance??
Greetings Mozzers, Doing my standard run through Webmaster tools and I discover up to 30% of my sitemaps no longer exist. Has anyone else experienced the recent loss of sitemaps/can suggest reasons why this may have happened? Re-submitting all sitemaps now but just concerned this might become an on-going issue...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobertChapman0 -
20 percent URL to be restructured - Should sitemap submission wait for 2 months
This site has over 5,000 pages & over 1000 URLS are going to be restructed. But this restrucuring will happen only 2 months later. Hence do we have to wait for 2 months before we submit for XML sitemap files to search engines. We would not like to wait, but our SEO consultant expert says we need to wait until the above refrred URl's are rewritten.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Francis_GlobalMediaInsight0