"Roy Schestowitz" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> Stacey wrote:
>>> 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/.
>> I know, so was the text one, I start making one and decided to change to
>> the text file. They will take 3 other type files beside the XML.
> Text files?! Are they in any way hierarchical? Without the artificial
> introduction of a tree structures like XML?
Well of course not. But I put one in until I get the other finished. I am
running the generator but hand writing it. I only have 150 pages so it
should take that long. They also state that you do have to submit the XML
> If not, then I might as well tell Google my site map address (although I
> sure they can interpret the English title which reads "Site Map"). Then,
> they can simply strip off anything not between "href=" and """ and
> /there/... they have my sitemap. Only the depth is then limited.
We no the real site map show priority pages and how often you update it.
Plus you resubmit everytime you have a new page.
> On a more general note, I know how valuable these sitemaps are to Google.
> They give them more available rosources. Yet, many people ask "how does it
> help /me/"? Unless Google reward people for doing it (e.g. ranks, crawling
> frequency), what is the point?
Only time will tell. It just might help a person have their site indexed
compared to not.