HTML or XML sitemap - benefits
-
Hi all,
Can I use only HTML sitemap or I should use both versions?
How much I would lose in case when I would lose only HTML sitemap, without XML sitemap?Thank you.
-
Hi Tormar,
You tend to find that almost every site has an XML sitemap tied in with Search Console, but an HTML sitemap doesn't really do much for Google and is more of a navigation aid for people to find places on large sites. You certainly won't get a penalty or benefit if you do or don't carry one.
Add one if you feel it will be beneficial, but don't if not.
-Andy
-
XML sitemaps are for the benefit of Google or other search engine crawlers. It makes it easier for them to index all your pages so you might see that if you dont use an XML sitemap that Google wont find all of your pages or index them within the search engine.
I don't see why you wouldn't want to use an XML sitemap. They are not hard to create and for the effort they take are very beneficial for your SEO.
I would suggest using both but if you were going to use one over the other I would suggest XML.
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
-
AMP Benefits
Hello, Does AMP have ranking benefits ? Should I just AMP my post or all the pages of my website, product page, homepage etc... Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Why do people put xml sitemaps in subfolders? Why not just the root? What's the best solution?
Just read this: "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location Yet surely it's better to put the sitemaps at the root so you have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
and so on... OR this kind of approach -
(b) http://example/com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml and
http://example.com/sitemap/spongecakes.xml I would tend towards (a) rather than (b) - which is the best option? Also, can I keep the structure the same for sitemaps that are subcategories of other sitemaps - for example - for a subcategory of http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml I might create http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml - or should I add a sub folder to turn it into http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes/cherryicing.xml Look forward to reading your comments - Luke0 -
Best server-side sitemap generators
I've been looking into sitemap generators recently and have got a good knowledge of what creating a sitemap for a small website of below 500 URLs involves. I have successfully generated a sitemap for a very small site, but I’m trying to work out the best way of crawling a large site with millions of URLs. I’ve decided that the best way to crawl such a large number of URLs is to use a server side sitemap, but this is an area that doesn’t seem to be covered in detail on SEO blogs / forums. Could anyone recommend a good server side sitemap generator? What do you think of the automated offerings from Google and Bing? I’ve found a list of server side sitemap generators from Google, but I can’t see any way to choose between them. I realise that a lot will depend on the type of technologies we use server side, but I'm afraid that I don't know them at this time.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
Sitemaps
I am working with a site that has sitemaps broken down very specifically. By page type: article, page etc and also broken down by Category. Unfortunately, this is not done hierarchically. Category and page type are separate maps, they are not nested. My question here is: Is is detrimental to have two separate sitemaps that point to the same pages? Should we eliminate one of these taxonomies, or maybe just try to make them hierarchical? IE item type -> category -> pagetitle Is there an issue with having a sitemap index that points to a nested sitemap index? (I dont think so, but might as well be sure. Thanks Moz Community! Can't delete my question, but turns out that isn't how they are structured. Food for thought anyway I suppose.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
Benefits of Implementing Open Graph?
I understand the benefits of implementing Open Graph as a local business, but am unclear of the benefits for a website, for example, a health website. Does Bing use OG in their search algorithm?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Should i remove sitemap from the mainsite at a webshop (footer link) and only submit .XML in Webmaster tools?
Case: Webshop with over 2000 products. I want to make a logical sitemap for Google to follow. What is best practice at this field? Should i remove the on-page sitemap there is in html with links (is shown as a footer link called "sitemap") and only have the domain.com/sitemap.xml ? Links for great articles about making sitemaps are appreciated to. The system is Magento, if that changes anything.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mickelp0 -
Sitemaps / Google Indexing / Submitted
We just submitted a new sitemap to google for our new rails app - http://www.thesquarefoot.com/sitemap.xml Which has over 1,400 pages, however Google is only seeing 114. About 1,200 are in the listings folder / 250 blog posts / and 15 landing pages. Any help would be appreciated! Aron sitemap.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheSquareFoot0