Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
-
Hi All,
I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us.
It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all
Common beliefs:
-
Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic.
-
A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling.
-
In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing.
-
If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour.
These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed.
Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed.
Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited.
It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling.
This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues.
Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all?
If you are interested, our map looks like this :
http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml
Many thanks
Paul
-
-
44 relates to the number of pages with the same urls as in your sitemap - it is not everything that is index. Your old site is still indexed and being found, as Google visits those pages and gets redirected to a new page it is likely that number will increase (from 44) and the number of old indexed will decrease.
Google doesn't index sites on a one-off go around because then if may take say 4 months to come back and index again and if you've a new important page that gets lots of links and you don't get indexed and ranked for it because you've not been visited you wouldn't be happy. Also if this was done on every site it would take forever and take much more resources than even google has. it is annoying but you've just got to grin and bear it - at least you old site is still ranking and being found.
-
Thanks Andy,
What I dont get, is why Google would index in this way. I can understand why they would weight the importance of a page based on the number/strength of incoming links but not the decision to index it at all when lead in by a sitemap.
I just get a little frustrated when Google offers you seemingly definitive stats only to find they are so vague and mysterious they have little to no value. We should have 1400+ pages indexed, we clearly have more than 44 indexed ... what on earth does the number 44 relate to?
-
I think that as your sitemap reflect your new urls and this is what the index is based on you are likely to have more indexed from what you say. I would suggest going to "indexed status" under health of GWT and click total index and ever crawled, this may help clear this up.
-
I experienced this issue with sandboxed websites.
Market your products and in a few months every page should be in Google's index.
Cheers.
-
Thanks for the quick responses.
We had a bit of a URL reshuffle recently to make them a little more informative and to prevent each page URL terminating with "product.aspx". But that was around a month ago. Prior to that, we were around 40% indexed for pages (from the sitemap section of WM tools), and always zero for images.
So given that we clearly have more than 44 pages indexed by Google, what do you think that figure actually means?
-
dealing with your indexing issue first - depending on when you submitted depends how soon those pages may be indexed. I say "may" because a sitemap (yes answering another question) is just an indicator of "i have these pages" it does not mean they will be indexed - indeed unless you've a small website you will never have 100% indexation in my experience.
Spiders (search robots) index / visit a website / page via another link. They follow links to a page from around the web, or the site itself. The more links from around the web the quicker you will get indexed. (this explains why if you've 10,000 pages you won't ever get a link from other websites to them all and so they won't all get indexed). This means if you've a web page that gets a ton of links it will be indexed sooner than those with just 1 link - assuming all links are equal (which they aren't).
Spiders are not cyclic in their searching, it's very ad-hoc based on links in your site and other sites linking to you. A spider won't be sent to spider every page on your site - it will do a small amount at a time, this is likely why 44 pages are indexed and not more at this point.
A sitemap is (as i say) an indicator of pages in your site, the importance of them and when they were updated / created. it's not really a definitive structure - it's more of a reference guide. Think of it as you being the guide on a bus tour of a city, the search engine is your passenger you are pointing out places of interest and every so often it will see something it wan't to see and get off to look, but it may take many trips to get off at every stop.
Finally, Canonicals are a great way to clear up duplicate content issues. They aren't 100% successful but they do help - especially if you are using dynamic urls (such as paginating category pages).
hope that helps
-
I see your frustration, how long ago did you submit these site maps? Are we talking a couple of weeks or a couple of days/ a day? As I've seen myself, Google is not that fast at calculating the nr of pages indexed (definitely not within GWT). Mostly within a couple of days/ within a week Google largely increased the nr of pages indexed.
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
-
For a sitemap.html page, does the URL slug have to be /sitemap?
Also, do you have to have anchors in your sitemap.html? or are naked URLs that link okay?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | imjonny1230 -
Client wants a seperate .tv domain for their media/videos instead of a subdomain/subfolder. What is the best way to pass of link equity to a new domain?
We have a client that wants to place their video content on a .tv tld instead of a subfolder/subdomain in their .com website. They believe that the .tv domain will better represent the media experience of their business. We can understand this client's position however we are concerned about their .tv domain will lose out on the link equity if it were no longer placed in the .com's subdomain/subfolder. Here are our questions: 1. What would be the best way to pass of link equity from .com website to a new .tv domain? Should we just have a video link on the .com website that 301 directs to the new .tv domain? 2. Is there any SEO benefit of having a .tv domain for Google Video queries or even Youtube? 3. Is there any long term value of having two different websites? For link equity purposes we understand that it would be better if everything was in a .com. However is a .tv domain ideal for a better representation of their media content? We appreciate any feedback.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
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 -
Index or not index Categories
We are using Yoast Seo plugin. On the main menu we have only categories which has consist of posts and one page. We have category with villas, category with villa hotels etc. Initially we set to index and include in the sitemap posts and excluded categories, but I guess it was not correct. Would be a better way to index and include categories in the sitemap and exclude the posts in order to avoid the duplicate? It somehow does not make sense for me, If the posts are excluded and the categories included, will not then be the categories empty for google? I guess I will get crazy of this. Somebody has perhaps more experiences with this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rebeca10 -
To index or de-index internal search results pages?
Hi there. My client uses a CMS/E-Commerce platform that is automatically set up to index every single internal search results page on search engines. This was supposedly built as an "SEO Friendly" feature in the sense that it creates hundreds of new indexed pages to send to search engines that reflect various terminology used by existing visitors of the site. In many cases, these pages have proven to outperform our optimized static pages, but there are multiple issues with them: The CMS does not allow us to add any static content to these pages, including titles, headers, metas, or copy on the page The query typed in by the site visitor always becomes part of the Title tag / Meta description on Google. If the customer's internal search query contains any less than ideal terminology that we wouldn't want other users to see, their phrasing is out there for the whole world to see, causing lots and lots of ugly terminology floating around on Google that we can't affect. I am scared to do a blanket de-indexation of all /search/ results pages because we would lose the majority of our rankings and traffic in the short term, while trying to improve the ranks of our optimized static pages. The ideal is to really move up our static pages in Google's index, and when their performance is strong enough, to de-index all of the internal search results pages - but for some reason Google keeps choosing the internal search results page as the "better" page to rank for our targeted keywords. Can anyone advise? Has anyone been in a similar situation? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FPD_NYC0 -
Old pages still in index
Hi Guys, I've been working on a E-commerce site for a while now. Let me sum it up : February new site is launched Due to lack of resources we started 301's of old url's in March Added rel=canonical end of May because of huge index numbers (developers forgot!!) Added noindex and robots.txt on at least 1000 urls. Index numbers went down from 105.000 tot 55.000 for now, see screenshot (actual number in sitemap is 13.000) Now when i do site:domain.com there are still old url's in the index while there is a 301 on the url since March! I know this can take a while but I wonder how I can speed this up or am doing something wrong. Hope anyone can help because I simply don't know how the old url's can still be in the index. 4cArHPH.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ssiebn70 -
Is there anything wrong with this 301 redirect?
I'll keep this one short and sweet 🙂 Many moons ago we used to have several different methods of sorting our products and this change in sort order was achieved by having ?dispmode=list or ?dispmode=grid after the product URL. Best part of a year ago we decided to scrap this feature and 301'd all the ?dispmode URL's back to the base URL. The funny thing is that Google don't seem to have dropped a single one of the old URL's from their index and a search for site:www.refreshcartridges.co.uk dispmode returns almost 8,000 results. This isn't a massive problem but I'd have expected in the past year they'd have picked up on a couple of the 301's and would have started removing the old results. I'd hate to think we were getting any kind of penalisation for duplicate pages. I know the answer to this question is going to be 'just be patient, the old results will disappear' but just to ensure we're not missing anything stupid. I'd really appreciate it if someone could check out www.refreshcartridges.co.uk/brother-c-223.html?dispmode=list to confirm there's nothing more we could be doing to get these old results removed from the index. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Cleaning up /index.html on home page
All, What is the best way to deal with a home page that has the /index.html at the end of it? 301 redirect to the .com home page? Just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JSOC0