We submitted through GWT 2 videos sitemaps (with around 2000 URLs
each) on January 3rd and nothing is indexed. On GWT the sitemaps are
valid and are being downloaded every day.
> We submitted through GWT 2 videos sitemaps (with around 2000 URLs
> each) on January 3rd and nothing is indexed. On GWT the sitemaps are
> valid and are being downloaded every day.
> > We submitted through GWT 2 videos sitemaps (with around 2000 URLs
> > each) on January 3rd and nothing is indexed. On GWT the sitemaps are
> > valid and are being downloaded every day.
> Still no input from the gurus out there? We need HEEEELLLLPP on this
> please!
> On 13 avr, 21:35, Franck_21 wrote:
> > Any help out there?
> > Thanks
> > Franck_21 a écrit :
> > > Hello,
> > > We submitted through GWT 2 videos sitemaps (with around 2000 URLs
> > > each) on January 3rd and nothing is indexed. On GWT the sitemaps are
> > > valid and are being downloaded every day.
> > > What is wrong?
> > > Thanks
> > > Franck
> > > PS: our (adult) site iswww.video-x.com- Hide quoted text -
I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
thumbnail to index a video.
Also, the sitemap is specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
tag and not adding any new information. The purpose of
video:content_loc would be to link to the actual video file itself.
Hi all, I had a video sitemap with option "Yes" on "allow_embed" . I
decided to change that to "No", so users would only see the video
directly on my site.
After a couple of days videos still can be played on google's video
website.
Is this question of time before all video will no play there ?
Should I remove completely the option "video:player_loc"?.
Any thoughts or experience about this ?
> I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
> provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
> the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
> thumbnail to index avideo.
> Also, thesitemapis specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
> the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
> tag and not adding any new information. The purpose ofvideo:content_loc would be to link to the actualvideofile itself.
Thanks we have removed the <video:content_loc> and have changed the
MIME-type to jpeg. The issue was that the images are on a database and
thus are generated on demand by a PHP page. For some reason with IE
the URLs were diplaying pictures whereas in FF we had the binary
code...
Hopefully it should be fixed now. Do you mind checking? Thanks
> I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
> provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
> the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
> thumbnail to index a video.
> Also, the sitemap is specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
> the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
> tag and not adding any new information. The purpose of
> video:content_loc would be to link to the actual video file itself.
Thanks we have removed the <video:content_loc> and have changed the
MIME-type to jpeg. The issue was that the images are on a database and
thus are generated on demand by a PHP page. For some reason with IE
the URLs were diplaying pictures whereas in FF we had the binary
code...
Hopefully it should be fixed now. Do you mind checking? Thanks
> I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
> provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
> the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
> thumbnail to index a video.
> Also, the sitemap is specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
> the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
> tag and not adding any new information. The purpose of
> video:content_loc would be to link to the actual video file itself.
> I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
> provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
> the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
> thumbnail to index a video.
> Also, the sitemap is specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
> the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
> tag and not adding any new information. The purpose of
> video:content_loc would be to link to the actual video file itself.
> I took a look and there's one main problem here: the thumbnail URL
> provided is served with a MIME-type of text/html so when we download
> the thumbnail, we don't think it's actually a thumbnail. We require a
> thumbnail to index a video.
> Also, the sitemap is specifying <video:content_loc> as the same URL as
> the <loc> which is the play page. This isn't the intended use of that
> tag and not adding any new information. The purpose of
> video:content_loc would be to link to the actual video file itself.
I double checked with the video team on this and it appears that
specifying a valid video:content_loc for your URLs would really help
us in recognizing the videos directly. In general, this tag is
optional, but in certain situations we may not be able to find the
content easily and therefore it would help for you to specify it. I'll
follow up with the video team once you have it there to make sure
other issues don't come up.
I could certainly give a content_loc URL but it would not be a
reachable URL since our site is pay per view and people need to log in
prior to actually watching a movie. Alternatively I could give you the
same URL as in <loc>
> I double checked with the video team on this and it appears that
> specifying a valid video:content_loc for your URLs would really help
> us in recognizing the videos directly. In general, this tag is
> optional, but in certain situations we may not be able to find the
> content easily and therefore it would help for you to specify it. I'll
> follow up with the video team once you have it there to make sure
> other issues don't come up.
Ok finally we got indexed. What's weird is that although we have
descriptions for all movies GG Video only displays descriptions for
10% of them (ie. 90% of our movies show up but without the description
text) ??
> I could certainly give a content_loc URL but it would not be a
> reachable URL since our site is pay per view and people need to log in
> prior to actually watching a movie. Alternatively I could give you the
> same URL as in <loc>
> Let me know
> Thanks
> On 3 juin, 16:24, JohnMu wrote:
> > Hi Franck
> > I double checked with the video team on this and it appears that
> > specifying a valid video:content_loc for your URLs would really help
> > us in recognizing the videos directly. In general, this tag is
> > optional, but in certain situations we may not be able to find the
> > content easily and therefore it would help for you to specify it. I'll
> > follow up with the video team once you have it there to make sure
> > other issues don't come up.
