Forum Moderators: open
The reason for the question is I have three site maps with urls crawler1.php, crawler2.php, and crawler3.php, with the words "site map" included in the link texts from the index page. These are only infrequently visited by Google. Is there something specific I should change them to?
My apologies if this has been covered before, but a search did not turn up anything on this question.
Harry
I'm not saying that Google ignores or penalizes or doesn't spider site maps, I just don't risk it.
My suggestion would be for you to create another clever name for "site map", such as "site structure", "keyword pages", "keyword structure", etc.
This way you would definitely be under the radar. Just try to make sure you don't have too many URL's per page.
I can hardly see how using a site map could be open to any sort of major abuse.
EW
Rich
I was under the impression that site maps were a very normal (if not encouraged) part of web design.
Google [google.com] definitely encourages their use:
Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map is larger than 100 or so links, you may want to break the site map into separate pages.
I see absolutely no reason for hiding the fact that a page is indeed a site map. It is useful both for spiders and for human users.
Nowadays, i use them to give a structural view of the underpinnings of the site, with the structure being embedded in a straight forward manner.
good luck with it
Google actually recommends the use of site maps.
The advice from 2_much could be a good one to adhere to. Using less than 100 links per page seems to be the past consensus, however I could in no way say that is a firm cut-off point or not.
The Google toolbar is playing funny games at the moment, however I would say with some degree of certainty that some site_maps I can see at the moment have been applied a PR downgrade or are not listed at all.
That said, if you are making a site map for the right reasons, that is for the benefit of your users, then maybe it's not worth the worry.
but you have to make sure that whatever you do to the sitemap is legit in terms of google.
Anything spamy from any page that includes sitemap page can get penalized or banned...
Spidering frequency is in line with the rest of the site.
Make sure though that each page is less than 100K and contains less than 100 links -- I usually go for less than 80 links.
I strongly recommend their use, as does Google and every other SE I know of, and see no reason why you should try to hide their existance, indeed they should be promoted!
I'm not saying that Google ignores or penalizes or doesn't spider site maps, I just don't risk it.
I agree, why risk it? I design mine to look just like a DMOZ category. Anchor text & a 1 or 2 sentence description for each link. Keeps the sitemap from looking like a links page & helps your users understand your anchor text.
My site map is named "site_map.html", weighs in at 16kb, contains 105 full paths to my main pages using anchor text links, and has a PR5. I SSI this to the bottom of every page on the domain, and when I've completed a significant site update, I submit site_map.html to the Google add URL utility which usually results in a full crawl.
Yes, I'd say Google supports site maps, says so here [google.com].
Risk what?
The page not ranking as well as it possibly can.
Unfortunately, I think they just treat site maps like regular pages...which is why they suggest limiting the page to 100 links. Personally, I think that, if a site is large, then it should have a large site map. I hate the collapsable site maps designers use to get around the Google 100 link limit.
It would be great to have a meta tag that says: "This is a site map or site index" ... and for Google to accept that the site map can be one page with a thousand internal links.
As my site map [slsites.com] has well over 200 links, I've been wondering if I should hide the site map from Google. When given a choice between designing for users or designing for Google, I usually err on the side of the user...which is probably why I get a good amount of repeat traffic and not that much Google traffic.
The page not ranking as well as it possibly can.
Risk what?
Im not recommending you name your site map "spiderfood", and i'm not even saying you should make one just for the se's. I'm only making a point.
However, if you have more than say 70-100 links on that page, the PR attributed may be PR-2. Therefore, a good reason to keep number of links down.
Site maps pages are also fab for getting the power of text links working. For a page that is ranking low on a particular phrase, I always add a few more links with those phrases to bump it up.
I read some good advice - see where onpage optimisation will get you for a phrase, then increase the specific text links until you get to the top.
This should very rarely be the case; only when an index page has a high PR5 (for example) and the site map a low PR5.
Index pages pretty much invariably have external links while site maps pretty much never do, so index pages will always have considerably higher PR. Not that this is a bad thing or anything, site maps are great ideas, and good ways to ensure a minimum level of PR for all your pages.
To clear up one point: I was not trying to hide the site maps, far from it. I want to make them stand out and attractive as possible for Googlebot to grab them. They are all under 100 links per page, under 22K, structured to be helpful to users, and they also follow Googles own site map format with brief headings followed by the appropriate links. Unfortunately Google rarely visits them.
As for naming convention, I'm still confused. Some people are reporting good take up with "site_map", whereas others seem to be saying that Google treats site maps like a normal page whatever they are called. And of course Google uses "sitemap".
I am actively considering renaming them, but it seemed sensible to canvas for opinions on the most Google-attracting name before proceeding.
Presumably if "site_map" is effective, so would be "site-map" - I hate underscores. :)
Harry
re PR of pages - when I was PR5 on index, all 5 pages on menu structure were PR5 (200 page site). When index went to PR6, after a month the menu structure pages went to PR6. This last week subpages dipped to PR5 for about 3 days, now back to PR6. Large number of links have been added in last month, both onto index page and subpages. I keep number of menu pages small so more chance of keeping the max, and put javascript links on non essential pages, ie terms & conditions, contact us, ... I have another site with 50 links on every page via css/li menu structure. Since so many links on every page, PR5 index, PR4 on every internal but the value of 50 text links on every page of a 50 page site means it is top for almost every term without the need for extensive external linking to internal pages.
[edited by: t2dman at 12:45 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2003]
don't use "site map". Give it an appropriate and descriptive but short name.
For a 'map' of your website how more appropriate and short can you get?
The widely recognized term is sitemap, no reason to try something else.
don't use "site map". Give it an appropriate and descriptive but short name.
I'm puzzled. What could be more appropriate and descriptive than "site-map" or "site_map"? The link text can be "site map" (unhyphenated) which is the recognized term found in numerous sites.
As I have more than one site map, in pracice they would have to be called soemthing like site-map-1, site-map-2, etc, or possibly more specifically site-map-red-widgets, site-map-green-widgets, etc.
Harry
