I have many websites, both personal and for my company, and nearly all
of them are showing very strange things in the webmaster tools when it
comes to downloading the sitemap files for the websites.
It says that it has successfully downloaded the sitemap, but found no
url's in it, plus the number of indexed urls is 0.
Our site www.proz.com has experienced a similar problem with WMT site
map detail. The xml files were downloaded by googlebot two hours ago
(index and all site maps and has done so daily forever), and WMT does
show our main index site map but shows 0 indexed urls, although we
have plenty of pages in the index and are still receiving the normal
amount of search traffic so I am inclined to think that this is an
issue with WMT - perhaps related to the recent improvements that
display linked pages for errors. If traffic and search patterns drop
then I would start to panic.
> I have many websites, both personal and for my company, and nearly all
> of them are showing very strange things in the webmaster tools when it
> comes to downloading the sitemap files for the websites.
> It says that it has successfully downloaded the sitemap, but found no
> url's in it, plus the number of indexed urls is 0.
I'm seeing individual sitemap files listed within an index start to
come back and as a bonus (so far) the warning about all URLs having
the same priority has gone.
Maybe this was an update to correct that issue and as part of
correcting it, meant that they had to reprocess all the sitemap files?
Thanks for keeping us posted. I just joined this group to try to
figure out what's up. I used to have several urls indexed under my
sitemapindex and everything has just disappeared under the index
(except the index). Poof. So I resubmitted and it's been 22 hours and
still says "pending" with the urls still missing.
Just chiming in to help underscore that this is a pretty pervasive
problem. I have the exact same issue-- my sitemap index seems to be
read, but nothing 'underneath' it is showing up, as if the sitemap
index is empty (it's not, nor are the sitemaps it points to). This is
a brand new issue, and we have not changed anything on our side.
> Thanks for keeping us posted. I just joined this group to try to
> figure out what's up. I used to have several urls indexed under my
> sitemapindex and everything has just disappeared under the index
> (except the index). Poof. So I resubmitted and it's been 22 hours and
> still says "pending" with the urls still missing.
> On Oct 23, 10:53 am, JohnMu wrote:
> > Hi guys
> > We're currently looking into the issue where it shows "0" for the
> > number of index Sitemap URLs.
> > We'll let you know as soon as we know more. Thanks for bringing this
> > issue up (to everyone who did :-)) and thanks for your patience!
Thanks for letting us know I did not even realize I was still sitting
at pending and 0 till today :( It's been like this since Oct. 21st
when I last updated it?
http://miabellashop.com/sitemap.xml
If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
they can still be indexed.
Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
normal crawling of a site.
If for some reason your number of indexed
pages is not what it was or what you expect
it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> Our sitewww.proz.comhas experienced a similar problem with WMT site
> map detail. The xml files were downloaded by googlebot two hours ago
> (index and all site maps and has done so daily forever), and WMT does
> show our main index site map but shows 0 indexed urls, although we
> have plenty of pages in the index and are still receiving the normal
> amount of search traffic so I am inclined to think that this is an
> issue with WMT - perhaps related to the recent improvements that
> display linked pages for errors. If traffic and search patterns drop
> then I would start to panic.
> DrewZ
> On Oct 22, 3:51 am, Philip Skinner wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have many websites, both personal and for my company, and nearly all
> > of them are showing very strange things in the webmaster tools when it
> > comes to downloading the sitemap files for the websites.
> > It says that it has successfully downloaded the sitemap, but found no
> > url's in it, plus the number of indexed urls is 0.
> If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> they can still be indexed.
> Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> normal crawling of a site.
> If for some reason your number of indexed
> pages is not what it was or what you expect
> it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> then actually using the information for indexing.
Google does not use the sitemaps for indexing. It still has to crawl
the site in order to index it. It will do it on its own schedule that
is influenced by the number and quality of backlinks and according to
how often in the past it has found that you have changed your pages
(and to what extent). The sitemap offers some information which is
useful, and may be used but only if it is also found to be truthful.
Every site is indexed or not according to its own merits.
The vast majority of sites will not be returned in searches in the top
1000 and even much les in the 100 or top 10, not when you see "results
1-10 of about 144000000" . But they usually get indexed (unless they
are very broken or ultra spammy) and you can see that with a site:
query.
> I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> of future results....
> However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> performance.
> Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> months.
> Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > they can still be indexed.
> > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > normal crawling of a site.
> > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > up in search results as updated.
> > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
> However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> performance.
> Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> months.
I completely agree something seems not right,
Absolutely!
The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
are not required, are only a supplement, and
Sitemap issues typically have no relation
to indexing of regular web sites.
If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
your latest articles or other similar situations,
then OK, It might delay indexing.
I just wanted to be clear on the point that
seems to be a popular misconception that
Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
main source of what Google will index.
If the page can be found via a normal crawl
through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
submission might be unnecessary.
In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
may have indexing issues address this as
a separate issue than Sitemaps.
I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
something else entirely.
Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
history shows in Google's favor that they address
such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
and let us know when the issue is resolved.
btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
to make ;-)
All the best,
Abracadabra
On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> of future results....
> However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> performance.
> Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> months.
> Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > they can still be indexed.
> > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > normal crawling of a site.
> > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > up in search results as updated.
> > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
> > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > performance.
> > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > months.
> I completely agree something seems not right,
> Absolutely!
> The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
> are not required, are only a supplement, and
> Sitemap issues typically have no relation
> to indexing of regular web sites.
> If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
> your latest articles or other similar situations,
> then OK, It might delay indexing.
> I just wanted to be clear on the point that
> seems to be a popular misconception that
> Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
> main source of what Google will index.
> If the page can be found via a normal crawl
> through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
> submission might be unnecessary.
> In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
> may have indexing issues address this as
> a separate issue than Sitemaps.
> I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
> issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
> the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
> something else entirely.
> Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
> history shows in Google's favor that they address
> such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
> and let us know when the issue is resolved.
> btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
> not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
> seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
> to make ;-)
> All the best,
> Abracadabra
> On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> > I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> > guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> > And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> > of future results....
> > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > performance.
> > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > months.
> > Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> > of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> > Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > > they can still be indexed.
> > > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > > normal crawling of a site.
> > > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > > up in search results as updated.
> > > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
1. Sitemap download issue
Today sitemap is still in pending status after 12 hours from the
submission
2. Indexing issue
Entries in my blog are not indexed after 1 week from submission;
usually an entry is indexed after a couple of days. crawling
performance problem?
What I can say so far would be that something is wrong with Google.
> That seems to give the most accurate real time
> results. You can also click on the cache link
> to find out when that page was last cached.
> Hope that helps,
> Abracadabra
> On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > Hi RobNewman,
> > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > performance.
> > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > months.
> > I completely agree something seems not right,
> > Absolutely!
> > The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
> > are not required, are only a supplement, and
> > Sitemap issues typically have no relation
> > to indexing of regular web sites.
> > If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
> > your latest articles or other similar situations,
> > then OK, It might delay indexing.
> > I just wanted to be clear on the point that
> > seems to be a popular misconception that
> > Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
> > main source of what Google will index.
> > If the page can be found via a normal crawl
> > through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
> > submission might be unnecessary.
> > In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
> > may have indexing issues address this as
> > a separate issue than Sitemaps.
> > I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
> > issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
> > the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
> > something else entirely.
> > Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
> > history shows in Google's favor that they address
> > such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
> > and let us know when the issue is resolved.
> > btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
> > not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
> > seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
> > to make ;-)
> > All the best,
> > Abracadabra
> > On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> > > Hi Tim,
> > > I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> > > guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> > > And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> > > of future results....
> > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > performance.
> > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > months.
> > > Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> > > of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> > > Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > > > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > > > they can still be indexed.
> > > > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > > > normal crawling of a site.
> > > > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > > > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > > > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > > > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > > > up in search results as updated.
> > > > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
> 1. Sitemap download issue
> Today sitemap is still in pending status after 12 hours from the
> submission
> 2. Indexing issue
> Entries in my blog are not indexed after 1 week from submission;
> usually an entry is indexed after a couple of days. crawling
> performance problem?
> What I can say so far would be that something is wrong with Google.
> On 10月24日, 午後12:55, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > Just to add one more thing,
> > To find the pages on your site that are indexed,
> > I prefer to use the site: search operator from a
> > Google search box.
> > That seems to give the most accurate real time
> > results. You can also click on the cache link
> > to find out when that page was last cached.
> > Hope that helps,
> > Abracadabra
> > On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > Hi RobNewman,
> > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > performance.
> > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > months.
> > > I completely agree something seems not right,
> > > Absolutely!
> > > The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
> > > are not required, are only a supplement, and
> > > Sitemap issues typically have no relation
> > > to indexing of regular web sites.
> > > If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
> > > your latest articles or other similar situations,
> > > then OK, It might delay indexing.
> > > I just wanted to be clear on the point that
> > > seems to be a popular misconception that
> > > Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
> > > main source of what Google will index.
> > > If the page can be found via a normal crawl
> > > through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
> > > submission might be unnecessary.
> > > In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
> > > may have indexing issues address this as
> > > a separate issue than Sitemaps.
> > > I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
> > > issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
> > > the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
> > > something else entirely.
> > > Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
> > > history shows in Google's favor that they address
> > > such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
> > > and let us know when the issue is resolved.
> > > btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
> > > not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
> > > seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
> > > to make ;-)
> > > All the best,
> > > Abracadabra
> > > On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > > I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> > > > guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> > > > And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> > > > of future results....
> > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > performance.
> > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > months.
> > > > Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> > > > of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> > > > Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > > > On Oct 23, 5:09 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > > > Just to comment,
> > > > > Sitemaps are not required for indexing.
> > > > > In fact, submitting a sitemap does not gaurentee
> > > > > all the URL's contained therein will be indexed.
> > > > > Here is a link to A Google post regarding that
> > > > > fact and other Sitemap FAQ's-http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/sitemaps-faqs.html
> > > > > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > > > > they can still be indexed.
> > > > > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > > > > normal crawling of a site.
> > > > > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > > > > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > > > > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > > > > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > > > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > > > > up in search results as updated.
> > > > > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > > > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > > > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
I have different issue. I have 2 websites - http://uhaaa.com and
another - http://en.uhaaa.com. The first site are ok - sitemaps are
downloaded, but for the second - forever pending. It's strange why one
of them is indexed, and another not.
> 1. Sitemap download issue
> Today sitemap is still in pending status after 12 hours from the
> submission
> 2. Indexing issue
> Entries in my blog are not indexed after 1 week from submission;
> usually an entry is indexed after a couple of days. crawling
> performance problem?
> What I can say so far would be that something is wrong with Google.
> On 10月24日, 午後12:55, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > Just to add one more thing,
> > To find the pages on your site that are indexed,
> > I prefer to use the site: search operator from a
> > Google search box.
> > That seems to give the most accurate real time
> > results. You can also click on the cache link
> > to find out when that page was last cached.
> > Hope that helps,
> > Abracadabra
> > On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > Hi RobNewman,
> > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > performance.
> > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > months.
> > > I completely agree something seems not right,
> > > Absolutely!
> > > The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
> > > are not required, are only a supplement, and
> > > Sitemap issues typically have no relation
> > > to indexing of regular web sites.
> > > If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
> > > your latest articles or other similar situations,
> > > then OK, It might delay indexing.
> > > I just wanted to be clear on the point that
> > > seems to be a popular misconception that
> > > Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
> > > main source of what Google will index.
> > > If the page can be found via a normal crawl
> > > through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
> > > submission might be unnecessary.
> > > In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
> > > may have indexing issues address this as
> > > a separate issue than Sitemaps.
> > > I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
> > > issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
> > > the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
> > > something else entirely.
> > > Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
> > > history shows in Google's favor that they address
> > > such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
> > > and let us know when the issue is resolved.
> > > btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
> > > not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
> > > seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
> > > to make ;-)
> > > All the best,
> > > Abracadabra
> > > On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> > > > Hi Tim,
> > > > I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> > > > guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> > > > And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> > > > of future results....
> > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > performance.
> > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > months.
> > > > Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> > > > of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> > > > Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > > > On Oct 23, 5:09 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > > > Just to comment,
> > > > > Sitemaps are not required for indexing.
> > > > > In fact, submitting a sitemap does not gaurentee
> > > > > all the URL's contained therein will be indexed.
> > > > > Here is a link to A Google post regarding that
> > > > > fact and other Sitemap FAQ's-http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/sitemaps-faqs.html
> > > > > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > > > > they can still be indexed.
> > > > > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > > > > normal crawling of a site.
> > > > > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > > > > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > > > > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > > > > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > > > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > > > > up in search results as updated.
> > > > > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > > > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > > > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
> I have different issue. I have 2 websites -http://uhaaa.comand > another -http://en.uhaaa.com. The first site are ok - sitemaps are
> downloaded, but for the second - forever pending. It's strange why one
> of them is indexed, and another not.
> > 1. Sitemap download issue
> > Today sitemap is still in pending status after 12 hours from the
> > submission
> > 2. Indexing issue
> > Entries in my blog are not indexed after 1 week from submission;
> > usually an entry is indexed after a couple of days. crawling
> > performance problem?
> > What I can say so far would be that something is wrong with Google.
> > On 10月24日, 午後12:55, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > Just to add one more thing,
> > > To find the pages on your site that are indexed,
> > > I prefer to use the site: search operator from a
> > > Google search box.
> > > That seems to give the most accurate real time
> > > results. You can also click on the cache link
> > > to find out when that page was last cached.
> > > Hope that helps,
> > > Abracadabra
> > > On Oct 23, 11:25 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > > Hi RobNewman,
> > > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > > performance.
> > > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > > months.
> > > > I completely agree something seems not right,
> > > > Absolutely!
> > > > The point I wanted to clarify is that Sitemaps
> > > > are not required, are only a supplement, and
> > > > Sitemap issues typically have no relation
> > > > to indexing of regular web sites.
> > > > If a news Sitemap or such helps Google find
> > > > your latest articles or other similar situations,
> > > > then OK, It might delay indexing.
> > > > I just wanted to be clear on the point that
> > > > seems to be a popular misconception that
> > > > Sitemaps are required for indexing and are the
> > > > main source of what Google will index.
> > > > If the page can be found via a normal crawl
> > > > through the on site navigation then a Sitemap
> > > > submission might be unnecessary.
> > > > In clarifying this I also hoped that those who
> > > > may have indexing issues address this as
> > > > a separate issue than Sitemaps.
> > > > I wouldn't want someone to assume an indexing
> > > > issue is due to Sitemaps and not seek help to find
> > > > the cause, when the real cause of the issue is
> > > > something else entirely.
> > > > Also, If the cause is in fact on Google's end,
> > > > history shows in Google's favor that they address
> > > > such issues, (Many times due to your valuable feedback)
> > > > and let us know when the issue is resolved.
> > > > btw- While it was your post I replied to it was
> > > > not targeted to you specifically. Your post just
> > > > seemed the most relevant to the point I wanted
> > > > to make ;-)
> > > > All the best,
> > > > Abracadabra
> > > > On Oct 23, 10:21 pm, RobNewman wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tim,
> > > > > I have read all the above FAQ's, with the usual Google, "we don't
> > > > > guarantee anything about anything" disclaimers.
> > > > > And as they say in the stock market, past performance is no guarantee
> > > > > of future results....
> > > > > However, something seems to be going on with Google's slow
> > > > > performance.
> > > > > Sitemaps used to take hours, not days to process and indexing of sites
> > > > > already indexed took days to weeks to get re-indexed, not weeks to
> > > > > months.
> > > > > Perhaps Google is getting bogged down with the sheer number and volume
> > > > > of websites which seem to be growing exponentially?
> > > > > Who knows, as Google would never admit to such a problem!
> > > > > On Oct 23, 5:09 pm, Tim Abracadabra wrote:
> > > > > > Just to comment,
> > > > > > Sitemaps are not required for indexing.
> > > > > > In fact, submitting a sitemap does not gaurentee
> > > > > > all the URL's contained therein will be indexed.
> > > > > > Here is a link to A Google post regarding that
> > > > > > fact and other Sitemap FAQ's-http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/01/sitemaps-faqs.html
> > > > > > If you have URLs that are not in a Sitemap
> > > > > > they can still be indexed.
> > > > > > Sitemaps are only a supplimental resource to
> > > > > > normal crawling of a site.
> > > > > > If for some reason your number of indexed
> > > > > > pages is not what it was or what you expect
> > > > > > it is not likely relevant to any issue with a Sitemap
> > > > > > or what Google Webmaster Tools shows as indexed URLs.
> > > > > > > I changed the titles on 68 pages and only 3 have been indexed and show
> > > > > > > up in search results as updated.
> > > > > > > That's only three pages in three weeks!
> > > > > > > It seems like a real problem with Google downloading the sitemaps and
> > > > > > > then actually using the information for indexing.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
I have one such "phenomenon" - it's for a single gzipped sitemap
showing as pending. I did not resubmit it lately, so its status of
pending has happened in the last couple of days only.
I click the Details link and all shows OK for that sitemap, including
date last downloaded (Oct 21), number of urls in it (about11000) and
number of urls currently indexed from it (about 6000). So all this is
normal and agrees with what was being shown previously on the sitemap
page in WMT.
It looks like it's only this page that's not displaying proper summary
information, but deep down all is OK.
Maybe you just need to wait a little bit longer for
them to catch up.
Interesting that some small sites I monitor do not seem to
be affected with Sitemaps uploaded and processsed on
Oct 20 and 21st. Then again, the sites typically have less than
100 URL's each.
> I have one such "phenomenon" - it's for a single gzipped sitemap
> showing as pending. I did not resubmit it lately, so its status of
> pending has happened in the last couple of days only.
> I click the Details link and all shows OK for that sitemap, including
> date last downloaded (Oct 21), number of urls in it (about11000) and
> number of urls currently indexed from it (about 6000). So all this is
> normal and agrees with what was being shown previously on the sitemap
> page in WMT.
> It looks like it's only this page that's not displaying proper summary
> information, but deep down all is OK.
> On Oct 24, 8:18 am, Pittbug wrote:
> > The sitemap index files are now showing a status of Pending, I guess
> > it'll be a couple more days until they have them reprocessed.- Hide quoted text -
