> Big Bill wrote:
>> RSS feeds will quite possibly get you get spidered more regularly that
>> you would be if you didn't have them, and have them properly
>> implemented at that. That doesn't mean that you'll be granted higher
>> rankings by any means - why should it? Where, temporarily I would
>> imagine, you might get a teeny advantage over those who don't have xml
>> feeds is that, if you're very slow to make any substantial alterations
>> to your site (and so are your competitors), then when you do make such
>> alterations it may get indexed faster in Google than if you didn't
>> have RSS feeds.
>> This doesn't by any stetch of the imagination automatically mean
>> you'll be indexed higher because of this. You might be lower!
>> Also, submission through the facility of the Google sitemap is only
>> submission. You could submit your sitemap today, but not get indexed
>> for months. Just like now, really.
>> Spidering is not the same as indexing.
>> Submission is not the same as inclusion.
>> www.kruse.co.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
>> seo that watches the river flow...
> The other thing to think about with a feed onto a page is reduced (or
> watered down) keyword density which could affect your rankings. Or the
> opposite of an increase in keyword density (if you have a very relevant
> feed) could also hurt rankings.
> They do train the bot to visit often for lower PR'd sites (my blog is
> only PR3 and is spidered everyday virtually).
Bill has a point, but he must remember that people with lower PageRanks (or
more pages) than him have a hard time 'persuading' Google to crawl deep
inside their site/s. By XML'ing their sites, they reduce Google's bandwidth
load and 'entice' it to index a greater extent of their sites.
Here is the test:
(1) Does Google crawl you entire site?
(2) If so, does the content indexed change or has changed?
If the answer to (1) is "no" or the answer to (2) is "yes", then Google
sitemap is probably not for you. Save yourself the trouble and implement
Roy S. Schestowitz