Sitemaps. When compressed do you use the .gz file format or the (untidy looking, IMHO) .xml.gz format?
-
When submitting compressed sitemaps to Google I normally use the a file named sitemap.gz
A customer is banging on that his web guy says that sitemap.xml.gz is a better format.
Google spiders sitemap.gz just fine and in Webmaster Tools everything looks OK...
Interested to know other SEOmoz Pro's preferences here and also to check I haven't made an error that is going to bite me in the ass soon!
Over to you.
-
Thanks Big Bazza... I like the 'better' vs 'accepted' reasoning. Not too confrontational
-
Generally the .xml.gz format is the one stated in examples there are a few references to this here : http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.php#index
Most sitemap generators that create both compressed and uncompressed sitemap files name them sitemap.xml and sitemap.xml.gz respectively. It also makes it clearer what the content of the zipped file is. I don't believe it is essential however, as you will direct tools such as google.com/webmasters to your xml sitemap - rather than expect it to find it of its own accord.
I always use the .xml.gz format when compressing. I would argue that (if both formats work) neither one is 'BETTER' than the other, rather one is more ACCEPTED than the other.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Should I use NoIndex on short-lived pages?
Hello, I have a large number of product pages on my site that are relatively short-lived: probably in the region of a million+ pages that are created and then removed within a 24 hour period. Previously these pages were being indexed by Google and did receive landings, but in recent times I've been applying a NoIndex tag to them. I've been doing that as a way of managing our crawl budget but also because the 410 pages that we serve when one of these product pages is gone are quite weak and deliver a relatively poor user experience. We're working to address the quality of those 410 pages but my question is should I be no-indexing these product pages in the first place? Any thoughts or comments would be welcome. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PhilipHGray0 -
Keyword research and bullet style format
Hi, If my keyword is SEO consultant when I write a paragraphs with with my secondary related keywords do I always need to have my primary keyword used in the secondary keywords. "SEO consultant prices", "SEO consultant training" etc.. or can I just surround my primary keyword with the words with the words "prices" and "training" in a sentence ? In a bullet style format if my title is SEO consultant, do the bullet need to include the secondary keyword with the primary keyword in it or not like that SEO consultant SEO consultant training* SEO consultant prices or can it be like that SEO consultant Training* Prices Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Using two 404 NOT FOUND pages
Hi all, I was wondering if any of you can advise whether it's no issue to use two separate custom 404 pages. The 404 pages would be different for different parts of the site. For instance, if you're on /community/ and you enter a non-existing page on: www.sample.com/community/example/ it would give you a different 404 page than someone who runs into a non existing page at: www.sample.com/definition/example/ Does anybody have experience with this and would this be fine?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RonFav0 -
Sitemap.xml
Looking for a discussion for using sitemap.xml We have used them for years and I still see that Google has an area to submit your sitemap to but from everything I research, including Google, sitemaps seem to now-a-days be almost useless. What do you think and what has your research shown? Thanks everybody! Charles Mazzini
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seomozinator0 -
What is the recommended way to save Image Files in WP?
Hi, Is there a recommended setting (or even plugin) to use when saving image files on my Wordpress blog?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
Which folders etc. Thanks0 -
Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
Hi All, I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us. It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all 🙂 Common beliefs: Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic. A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling. In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing. If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour. These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed. Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed. Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited. It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling. This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues. Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all? If you are interested, our map looks like this : http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml Many thanks Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
Could you use a robots.txt file to disalow a duplicate content page from being crawled?
A website has duplicate content pages to make it easier for users to find the information from a couple spots in the site navigation. Site owner would like to keep it this way without hurting SEO. I've thought of using the robots.txt file to disallow search engines from crawling one of the pages. Would you think this is a workable/acceptable solution?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gregelwell0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1