Sitemaps must not include redirected URLs,
but
when URLs have permanent redirects HTTP status 301
to new URLs,
can a sitemap help
in updating the search results and indicate to
Googlebot to transfer PageRank from the old URL
to the new URL?
Do the redirect error messages given by
Google Webmaster Tools for URLs with redirects
in the sitemap
mean that the redirects are followed,
or
that the URLs with redirects
are not further processed at all from the sitemap?
Those are some good questions, I hope I can give you some good
answers :).
Sitemap files can help us to recognize the preferred URL for a piece
of content if we know of multiple URLs for it. That's also the case
with URLs which are 301 redirecting, so I would definitely recommend
listing the new/final URLs in a Sitemap file. That said, the message
shown in Webmaster Tools is more of a warning, so you will generally
not have any big issues if you have a Sitemap file that points to URLs
which are 301 redirecting elsewhere.
My recommendation would be to update the Sitemap file when you start
redirecting the URLs. We generally don't forget about the old URLs,
will recrawl them & find the 301 redirects there as well, regardless
of whether or not those old URLs are still listed in the Sitemap file.
I don't think it would provide any advantage to list the old (and
redirecting) URLs in the Sitemap file on purpose.
I can see where Cristina is coming from. Sometiems some urls are so
obscure and low ranking, mitgh be in the omitted resuls when doing a
site: query, that it can take very long until the redirection gets
seen and applied, if it ever happens.
This is when I feel tempted to build a simple clean-up page with all
(or some of) those pre-redirection links and hope that when that page
gets spidered the old urls also get spidered and the redirections get
found faster. I'd put a link to this page on the homepage of the site
or some other spot that's spidered regulalry, and throw it out there.
Take it off when the deed is done.
Only intrinsic laziness has kept me from actually doing this LOL
> Those are some good questions, I hope I can give you some good
> answers :).
> Sitemap files can help us to recognize the preferred URL for a piece
> of content if we know of multiple URLs for it. That's also the case
> with URLs which are 301 redirecting, so I would definitely recommend
> listing the new/final URLs in a Sitemap file. That said, the message
> shown in Webmaster Tools is more of a warning, so you will generally
> not have any big issues if you have a Sitemap file that points to URLs
> which are 301 redirecting elsewhere.
> My recommendation would be to update the Sitemap file when you start
> redirecting the URLs. We generally don't forget about the old URLs,
> will recrawl them & find the 301 redirects there as well, regardless
> of whether or not those old URLs are still listed in the Sitemap file.
> I don't think it would provide any advantage to list the old (and
> redirecting) URLs in the Sitemap file on purpose.
What I meant was that sometimes URL can change,
but keep similar content,
and URLs that are already indexed in
search results are redirected HTTP status 301 to new URLs,
for example when sites change mabye from .htm
to .php or from URLs like
http://example.com/page25.html to
http://example.com/product-name.html or URLs with some domain name
are redirected HTTP status 301
to another domain name, etc.
In these cases it can happen that
old URLs source of redirects and old cached copies
continue to stay for some time in search results,
and site owners do not see for that time
PageRank being passed from
the old URLs to the corresponding new URLs, or
both the cached copy of the old URL source
of the redirect and of the new URL
destination of the redirect
are for some time in search results and it is the worry
of similar/duplicate content.
I was just wondering if the sitemap can help here
with indicating that URLs are redirected 301 to
new URLs.
Also I was wondering if the redirect messages
given in Google Webmaster Tools
when a sitemap contains redirected URLs
mean that the information that the URLs are redirected
has been added to Googlebot's database and search index.
Thank you very much again for your comprehensive reply.
> Those are some good questions, I hope I can give you some good
> answers :).
> Sitemap files can help us to recognize the preferred URL for a piece
> of content if we know of multiple URLs for it. That's also the case
> with URLs which are 301 redirecting, so I would definitely recommend
> listing the new/final URLs in a Sitemap file. That said, the message
> shown in Webmaster Tools is more of a warning, so you will generally
> not have any big issues if you have a Sitemap file that points to URLs
> which are 301 redirecting elsewhere.
> My recommendation would be to update the Sitemap file when you start
> redirecting the URLs. We generally don't forget about the old URLs,
> will recrawl them & find the 301 redirects there as well, regardless
> of whether or not those old URLs are still listed in the Sitemap file.
> I don't think it would provide any advantage to list the old (and
> redirecting) URLs in the Sitemap file on purpose.
Yep, I just changed urls on a site I'm taking care of, from .shtml
to .php.
Why did I do it? Because I was unable to get a lastmod date for them
while they remained .shtml - even if I used an Apache handler to parse
shtml as php (instead of the regular SSI).
It was easier to turn them all into php and be done.
So what am I seeing? Most pages are now indexed as both .shtml and
php. I have 301 redirects in place, no problem.
I know it's going to get sorted soon, it's just funny that's all.
> What I meant was that sometimes URL can change,
> but keep similar content,
> and URLs that are already indexed in
> search results are redirected HTTP status 301 to new URLs,
> for example when sites change mabye from .htm
> to .php or from URLs likehttp://example.com/page25.htmltohttp://example.com/product-name.html > or URLs with some domain name
> are redirected HTTP status 301
> to another domain name, etc.
> In these cases it can happen that
> old URLs source of redirects and old cached copies
> continue to stay for some time in search results,
> and site owners do not see for that time
> PageRank being passed from
> the old URLs to the corresponding new URLs, or
> both the cached copy of the old URL source
> of the redirect and of the new URL
> destination of the redirect
> are for some time in search results and it is the worry
> of similar/duplicate content.
> I was just wondering if the sitemap can help here
> with indicating that URLs are redirected 301 to
> new URLs.
> Also I was wondering if the redirect messages
> given in Google Webmaster Tools
> when a sitemap contains redirected URLs
> mean that the information that the URLs are redirected
> has been added to Googlebot's database and search index.
> Thank you very much again for your comprehensive reply.
> Cristina.
> On Aug 24, 10:26 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > Hi Cristina!
> > Those are some good questions, I hope I can give you some good
> > answers :).
> > Sitemap files can help us to recognize the preferred URL for a piece
> > of content if we know of multiple URLs for it. That's also the case
> > with URLs which are 301 redirecting, so I would definitely recommend
> > listing the new/final URLs in a Sitemap file. That said, the message
> > shown in Webmaster Tools is more of a warning, so you will generally
> > not have any big issues if you have a Sitemap file that points to URLs
> > which are 301 redirecting elsewhere.
> > My recommendation would be to update the Sitemap file when you start
> > redirecting the URLs. We generally don't forget about the old URLs,
> > will recrawl them & find the 301 redirects there as well, regardless
> > of whether or not those old URLs are still listed in the Sitemap file.
> > I don't think it would provide any advantage to list the old (and
> > redirecting) URLs in the Sitemap file on purpose.
|
