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
-
Old sitemaps after site migration.
Hi, I was wondering if it's safe to remove all the sitemaps from the old site in search console? It's been 3 months since site migration from http://sitea.com (301 redirected) to http://siteb.com. Therefore, can I delete the old sitemap from the http://sitea.com from search console? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul5620 -
Any excellent recommendations for a sitemap.xml plugin?
Hi, I'm trying to find a sitemap generator/plugin that I can point my client to. My client is using Magento, and is one of the largest sports store i Norway (around 20 000 products). I've heard there's one that can set the <priority>according to page views, sold units, and other relevant parameters, and that also takes care of the other elements in the sitemap.xml.</priority> Any good recommendations out there? 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo0 -
XML Sitemaps settings for simple websites
We have numerous simple websites that are not updated very often (maybe once every 12-18 months). We are trying to create the perfect XML sitemap for them. Which brings me to my 2 questions:- 1. Should we include the "lastmod" tag in the XML sitemap? 2. What would you set the "changefreq" at? Once a month? Remember these sites are never updated as they are simple sites for industry sectors such as building and property maintenance. Please justify your answer and explain why as we are trying to understand.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnW-UK0 -
Why do some sites have several types of sitemap?
Hello Mozzers, I often seem to work on websites with several types of sitemaps - e.g. an html sitemap - an xml sitemap - almost always with identical structure and content. Does anybody know the thinking behind this? Currently looking at site with php and xml sitemap sitting alongside one another. I'm guessing one is for site users to read (and also to aid indexing) and the other for search engines, to further aid indexing. Does Google have any preferences? Is there anything you should be wary of re: Google, if there are multiple sitemaps?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Sitemaps: HTML and/or XML?
Can someone explain sitemaps, and if you need html and/or xml? I have a site with a few html sitemaps, one for products, one for categories. I have another site with just one xml sitemap for my entire site (which has massive pages, 600k+). Should I be dividing the site with massive pages into html sitemaps like my other site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Urls missing from product_cat sitemap
I'm using Yoast SEO plugin to generate XML sitemaps on my e-commerce site (woocommerce). I recently changed the category structure and now only 25 of about 75 product categories are included. Is there a way to manually include urls or what is the best way to have them all indexed in the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kisen0 -
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 -
Online Sitemap Generator
I have a site that has around 5,000 pages now. Are there any recommened online free/paid tools to generate a sitemap for me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rhysmaster0