Sitemaps during a migration - which is the best way of dealing with them?
-
Many SEOs I know simply upload the new sitemap once the new site is launched - some keep the old site's URLs on the new sitemap (for a while) to facilitate the migration - others upload both the old and the new website together, to support the migration. Which is the best way to proceed? Thanks, Luke
-
Very much appreciated CleverPhD!
-
Found this while looking for a answer for another question could not find this the other day- right from the mouth of Google to not include pages that do not exist in XML sitemaps.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/10/best-practices-for-xml-sitemaps-rssatom.html
URLs
URLs in XML sitemaps and RSS/Atom feeds should adhere to the following guidelines:
- Only include URLs that can be fetched by Googlebot. A common mistake is including URLs disallowed by robots.txt — which cannot be fetched by Googlebot, or including URLs of pages that don't exist.
-
Mate nailed it completely!
-
I would say make sure that your new sitemap has all the latest URLs. The reason people say that you should have old URLs in the sitemap is so that Google can quickly crawl the old URLs to find the 301s to the new URLs.
I am not convinced that this helps. Why?
Google already has all your old URLs in its systems. You would be shocked how far back Google has data on your site with old URLs. I have a site that is over 10 years old and I still see URL structures referenced in Google from 7 years ago that have a 301 in place. Why is this?
Google will assume that, "Well, I know that this URL is a 301 or 404, but I am going to crawl it every once in a while just to make sure the webmaster did not do this by mistake." You can notice this in Search Console error or link reports when you setup 301s or 404s, they may stay in there for months and even come back once they fall out of the error list. I had an occurrence where I had some old URLs showing up in the SERPs and various Search Console reports for a site for 2 years following proper 301 setups. Why was this happening?
This is a large site and we still had some old content still linking to the old URLs. The solution was to delete the links in that old content and setup a canonical to self on all the pages to help give a definitive directive to Google. Google then finally replaced the old URLs with the new URLs in the SERPs and in the Search Console reports. The point here being that previously our site was giving signals (links) that told Google that some of the old URLs were still valid and Google was giving us the benefit of the doubt.
If you want to have the new URLs seen by Google, show them in your sitemap. Google already has all the old URLs and will check them and find the 301s and fix everything. I would also recommend the canonical to self on the new pages. Don't give any signals to Google that your old URLs are still valid by linking to them in any way, especially your sitemap. I would even go so far as to reach out to any important sites that link to old URLs to ask for an updated link to your site.
As I mentioned above, I do not think there is an "advantage" of getting the new URLs indexed quicker by putting old URLs in the sitemap that 301 to the new URLs. Just watch your Google Search Console crawl stats. Once you do a major overhaul, you will see Google really crawl your site like crazy and they will update things pretty quick. Putting the old URLs in the sitemap is a conflicting signal in that process and has the potential to slow Google down IMHO.
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
-
Google does not index image sitemap
Hi, we put an image sitemap in the searchconsole/webmastertools http://www.sillasdepaseo.es/sillasdepaseo/sitemap-images.xml it contains only the indexed products and all images on the pages. We also claimed the CDN in the searchconsole http://media.sillasdepaseo.es/ It has been 2 weeks now, Google indexes the pages, but not the images. What can we do? Thanks in advance. Dieter Lang
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco0 -
Building a product clients will integrate into their sites: What is the best way to utilize my clients' unique domain names?
I'm designing a hosted product my clients will integrate into their websites, their end users would access it via my clients' customer-facing websites. It is a product my clients pay for which provides a service to their end users, who would have to login to my product via a link provided by my clients. Most clients would choose to incorporate this link prominently on their home page and site nav.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | emzeegee
All clients will be in the same vertical market, so their sites will be keyword rich and related to my site.
Many may even be .org and ,edus The way I see it, there are three main ways I could set this up within the product.
I want to know which is most beneficial, or if I'm missing anything. 1: They set up a subdomain at their domain that serves content from my domain product.theirdomain.com would render content from mydomain.com's database.
product.theirdomain.com could have footer and/or other no-follow links to mydomain.com with target keywords The risk I see here is having hundreds of sites with the same target keyword linking back to my domain.
This may be the worst option, as I'm not sure about if the nofollow will help, because I know Google considers this kind of link to be a link scheme: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en 2: They link to a subdomain on mydomain.com from their nav/site
Their nav would include an actual link to product.mydomain.com/theircompanyname
Each client would have a different "theircompanyname" link.
They would decide and/or create their link method (graphic, presence of alt tag, text, what text, etc).
I would have no control aside from requiring them to link to that url on my server. 3: They link to a subdirectory on mydomain.com from their nav/site
Their nav would include an actual link to mydomain.com/product/theircompanyname
Each client would have a different "theircompanyname" link.
They would decide and/or create their link method (graphic, presence of alt tag, text, what text, etc).
I would have no control aside from requiring them to link to that url on my server. In all scenarios, my marketing content would be set up around mydomain.com both as static content and a blog directory, all with SEO attractive url slugs. I'm leaning towards option 3, but would like input!0 -
Migration Strategy
Hi guys, Just want to check on this site migration strategy. Basically we have an Australian based ecommerce site which is going to launch globally. The company has two site. One is (http://www.domainUS.com – for US market) and one is Australian based (http://www.domain.com.au). Basically the plan is to have one single global .com site (like ASOS.com) on a new domain which would be domain.com and put both the current http://www.domainUS.com (US VERSION) and http://www.domain.com.au (AUSTRALIAN VERSION) on the new domain: domain.com (global) To make it even more complicated the new global domain (domain.com) is in the process of being purchased (someone else has the domain) and won’t be available till January 2016. But the company wants to execute the new global setup in November 2015 temporary on the .com.au version The current migration plan is to create two different sub-folders one for US e.g. http:www.domain.com.au/us and one for AUD http://www.domain.com/au on the current domain Australian domain.com.au for the global launch in November 2015. Then once domain.com is ready in January 2016, then migrate to domain.com with the countries as sub-folder (as shown below in stage 3). I was wondering if you guys think this would be an ideal migration strategy given the circumstances. Link to screenshot of current migration strategy: http://c714091.r91.cf2.rackcdn.com/4c2aae21dcbd548f27d96840227b81bc6b8b00c592.png Any advice would be very much appreciated! Cheers, Chris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jayoliverwright0 -
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 -
Custom sitemap or sitemap generator tool
I have recently launched a website which is using a free sitemap generator (http://web-site-map.com/). It's a large travel agency site (www.yougoadventure.com) with predominantly dynamically generated content - users can add their products as and when and be listed automatically. The guy doing the programming for the site says the sitemap generator is not up to the job and that I should be ranking far better for certain search terms than the site is now. He reckons it doesn't provide lastmod info and the sitemap should be submitted every time a new directory is added or change made. He seems to think that I need to spend £400-£500 for him to custom build a site map. Surely there's a cheaper option out there for a sitemap that can be generated daily or 'ping' google every-time an addition to the site is made or product added? Sorry for the non tech speak - Ive got my web designer telling one thing and the programmer another so im just left trawling through Q&As. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Curran0 -
Sitemap.xml
Looking for a discussion for using sitemap.xml We have used them for years and I still see that Google has an area to submit your sitemap to but from everything I research, including Google, sitemaps seem to now-a-days be almost useless. What do you think and what has your research shown? Thanks everybody! Charles Mazzini
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seomozinator0 -
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
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
Best way to help a city-centric service provider market in new nearby territories?
Our client recently acquired new county territories outside the main area city. We could create separate location pages under the primary domain, but are wondering if micro sites with unique content (and location-including url) that links back to the location pages would also be a good idea. There is some traction for certain location-based keywords in those areas. Better to focus on the one domain, or augment with separate websites in different parts of the state? I can come up with plausible reasons for and against either, but would love your thoughts. Thank you for any insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PerfectPitchConcepts0