Emme wrote:
> "Stacey" <stacey@staceyssimplestuff.com> wrote in message
> news:h2gze.44457$rb6.20983@lakeread07...
>> "Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ht8qc11pe8ba46o1eq16d9jij2aorsvsds@4ax.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>> True, but if you read Google Guidelines they are suggesting you do it. My
>> was submitted and they accepted it 2 hours ago. Of course all of my pages
>> were already indexed....but hey I got mine in!
>
> I've created a Google sitemap for a few of my sites, and I've already seen
> an increase in the number of URLs in the Google index. These sites use
> form-based & search navigation to deliver results to users - so there's no
> way for Google to crawl the deeper content.
>
> Originally I dismissed Google Sitemaps as a "dinky" tool, but now I think
> that for some sites where building a real, html sitemap is impossible, it
> does seem like a good idea
Webmasters for whom creating a comprehensive XML sitemap is laborious will
not like Google sitemap. It is easy to do it when a single content
management system is used, but not if several different CMS's (or none)
reside on the same domain. In that case, extra scripts need to be composed
or manual mergers be involved. Then, as well as keeping HTML site maps
up-to-date (for visitors and other crawlers), the Webmaster needs to also
handle XML to make Google happy. It is a site map /fork/.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
