Re: XML Sitemaps for Large Sites

I have to agree with the poster who recommended IA as a
solution to
getting more pages into SE index. I/We have been doing the
XML thing
for sometime and havn't noticed anything significant in the
amount of
pages that have been crawled. The odd thing that i do see is
our
product pages getting indexed and parent and sub-parent
pages being
skipped! I read a great post by Jim Boykin whom recommended
using
internal linking (and the use of nofollows) as a means of
getting
lower pages indexed to avoid having pages pushed to the
supplemental
index. Rather than setting up an XML Sitemap and praying
that more
pages get crawled, the auditing and restructuring of your
sites
internal linking could prove to be more useful.

http://www
.jimboykin.com/internal-linking/

Once again great post!

Dizzle

On Dec 17, 8:01 am, Andrew Goodman <agood...gmail.com> wrote:
> To put as much info as possible on the table, it's
worth noting that:
>
> (a) in the recent session on this at SES, the Ask.com
rep pointed out
> that the vast majority of sites using Sitemaps today
are in fact spam
> or spammy sites. Overall, on "good" or
"trusted" sites, adoption is
> low currently (10-15%).;
>
> (b) does this mean that using one can actually throw
suspicion on you?
> No, the search engine reps were all adamant about this.
By definition,
> they're making a distinction between well rated sites,
and very low
> trust sites. If you're not in the latter category,
using a Sitemap
> won't put you there. But it does suggest that if you
are a spammy
> site, they're using your Sitemaps behavior to gain
added strategic
> info about spammer types. It also means they're
currently overwhelmed
> with data so it is unlikely that Sitemaps is going to
turn out to be a
> panacea unless something changes in the environment or
the design of
> Sitemaps. But that "something" probably winds
up looking like paid
> inclusion, which is no solution, especially not if
SEO's with "trusted
> identities and logins" begin selling them 
>
> Andrew
>
> On Dec 16, 10:15 pm, Jon Henshaw <hens...gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I generally don't concern myself with sitemaps
unless the website is
> > new or doesn't get crawled very well. Every
discussion I've had with a
> > Google Sitemap Engineer (a total of 2 live
discussions) has led me to
> > believe that they are of little to know use for
sites that already
> > have good information architecture (IA) and are
currently well
> > indexed.
>
> > As for whether or not they actually can harm the
performance of a
> > site, I'm thinking that's probably just the
healthy paranoia of a
> > search marketer. I think the best way is to focus
on your IA and to
> > channel traffic and emphasis to the parts of your
website you want to
> > perform best. That means actually using
rel="nofollow" on portions of
> > your site that you don't care about or cover
topics that aren't
> > related to your conversion and SERP performance
goals.
>
> > Jon Henshaw
> > Internet Strategist
> > Sitening -http://sitening.com
>
> > On Dec 12, 4:14 pm, Adam Audette <p...audettemedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm wondering if anyone has experience using
XML sitemap feeds for
> > > sites over 30,000 pages. Specifically, what
sort of improvements in
> > > crawling and/or indexing (or even ranking)
have you tracked? We did a
> > > site that was about 30k pages this summer and
noted some improvements
> > > in indexing time (faster crawling), but
overall it hasn't had a
> > > significant impact.
>
> > > Intuitively it just makes sense to push
content into the engines
> > > rather than wait for them to find it. And I'm
sure with dynamic sites
> > > that have crawling roadblocks it helps a
bunch, but I'm not convinced
> > > XML sitemaps really make that big of a
difference. I'd love to hear
> > > otherwise.
>
> > > There are even those who contend that adding
a sitemap can actually
> > > hinder a site in some way. For awhile I was
reading advice to verify
> > > your site in Google Webmaster Tools but not
submit a feed. Any
> > > changing views on this? It seems if a site
has big problems (like
> > > loads of dupe content) that creating a feed
would allow googlebot to
> > > discover those issues perhaps easier.
>
> > > -Adam Audette
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "SEM 2.0" group.

To post to this group, send email to SEM2googlegroups.com

**The moderators highly recommend you visit http://groups.goo
gle.com/group/SEM2 and log into the forum on the web, to
access the full range of posting, reading, and searching
options. To make your subscription "web-only" (no
email), you can set your preferences while logged into the
forum.**

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SEM2-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

That strategy was also reinforced at PubCon by Matt Cutts
himself  
during a site review session – which makes me sold on the
idea.

Jon Henshaw
Internet Strategist
Sitening - http://sitening.com

Raven SEO Tools - http://ravenseo.com

On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Dizzle wrote:

>
> I have to agree with the poster who recommended IA as a
solution to
> getting more pages into SE index. I/We have been doing
the XML thing
> for sometime and havn't noticed anything significant in
the amount of
> pages that have been crawled. The odd thing that i do
see is our
> product pages getting indexed and parent and sub-parent
pages being
> skipped! I read a great post by Jim Boykin whom
recommended using
> internal linking (and the use of nofollows) as a means
of getting
> lower pages indexed to avoid having pages pushed to the
supplemental
> index. Rather than setting up an XML Sitemap and
praying that more
> pages get crawled, the auditing and restructuring of
your sites
> internal linking could prove to be more useful.
>
> http://www
.jimboykin.com/internal-linking/
>
> Once again great post!
>
> Dizzle
>
> On Dec 17, 8:01 am, Andrew Goodman <agood...gmail.com> wrote:
>> To put as much info as possible on the table, it's
worth noting that:
>>
>> (a) in the recent session on this at SES, the
Ask.com rep pointed out
>> that the vast majority of sites using Sitemaps
today are in fact spam
>> or spammy sites. Overall, on "good" or
"trusted" sites, adoption is
>> low currently (10-15%).;
>>
>> (b) does this mean that using one can actually
throw suspicion on  
>> you?
>> No, the search engine reps were all adamant about
this. By  
>> definition,
>> they're making a distinction between well rated
sites, and very low
>> trust sites. If you're not in the latter category,
using a Sitemap
>> won't put you there. But it does suggest that if
you are a spammy
>> site, they're using your Sitemaps behavior to gain
added strategic
>> info about spammer types. It also means they're
currently overwhelmed
>> with data so it is unlikely that Sitemaps is going
to turn out to  
>> be a
>> panacea unless something changes in the environment
or the design of
>> Sitemaps. But that "something" probably
winds up looking like paid
>> inclusion, which is no solution, especially not if
SEO's with  
>> "trusted
>> identities and logins" begin selling them 
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Dec 16, 10:15 pm, Jon Henshaw <hens...gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I generally don't concern myself with sitemaps
unless the website is
>>> new or doesn't get crawled very well. Every
discussion I've had  
>>> with a
>>> Google Sitemap Engineer (a total of 2 live
discussions) has led me  
>>> to
>>> believe that they are of little to know use for
sites that already
>>> have good information architecture (IA) and are
currently well
>>> indexed.
>>
>>> As for whether or not they actually can harm
the performance of a
>>> site, I'm thinking that's probably just the
healthy paranoia of a
>>> search marketer. I think the best way is to
focus on your IA and to
>>> channel traffic and emphasis to the parts of
your website you want  
>>> to
>>> perform best. That means actually using
rel="nofollow" on portions  
>>> of
>>> your site that you don't care about or cover
topics that aren't
>>> related to your conversion and SERP performance
goals.
>>
>>> Jon Henshaw
>>> Internet Strategist
>>> Sitening -http://sitening.com
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 4:14 pm, Adam Audette <p...audettemedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm wondering if anyone has experience
using XML sitemap feeds for
>>>> sites over 30,000 pages. Specifically, what
sort of improvements in
>>>> crawling and/or indexing (or even ranking)
have you tracked? We  
>>>> did a
>>>> site that was about 30k pages this summer
and noted some  
>>>> improvements
>>>> in indexing time (faster crawling), but
overall it hasn't had a
>>>> significant impact.
>>
>>>> Intuitively it just makes sense to push
content into the engines
>>>> rather than wait for them to find it. And
I'm sure with dynamic  
>>>> sites
>>>> that have crawling roadblocks it helps a
bunch, but I'm not  
>>>> convinced
>>>> XML sitemaps really make that big of a
difference. I'd love to hear
>>>> otherwise.
>>
>>>> There are even those who contend that
adding a sitemap can actually
>>>> hinder a site in some way. For awhile I was
reading advice to  
>>>> verify
>>>> your site in Google Webmaster Tools but not
submit a feed. Any
>>>> changing views on this? It seems if a site
has big problems (like
>>>> loads of dupe content) that creating a feed
would allow googlebot  
>>>> to
>>>> discover those issues perhaps easier.
>>
>>>> -Adam Audette
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "SEM 2.0" group.

To post to this group, send email to SEM2googlegroups.com

**The moderators highly recommend you visit http://groups.goo
gle.com/group/SEM2 and log into the forum on the web, to
access the full range of posting, reading, and searching
options. To make your subscription "web-only" (no
email), you can set your preferences while logged into the
forum.**

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SEM2-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---