Site Map Structure

[LLFitness_Derek]

My site www.pool-table-sale.com has 700+ pages. I need to create a site map but would like to get a few suggestions first. Should i create 1 page for the sitemap or should i spread the sitemap out over a couple pages? (What Would Google Do)

Ex1:
sitemap.html = all urls

Ex2:
sitemap1.html = 1/3 urls
sitemap2.html = 1/3 urls
sitemap3.html = 1/3 urls

Thanks
Derek

[Nikolas]

Google will be ok if you have less than 100 links at every page, but have in mind that you should link each other pages of the sitemap, because google bot crawls by levels.

If you have a lot of levels maybe will not be crawled.

[jestep]

I split mine up to a max of about 100 per page. Even 100 is a huge number of links on it. Make sure each page of the sitemap is available from every other page.

[HHI_Golf_Guy]

Why do you need that many links (100) on your site map page?

A site map should be designed for your web visitors to quickly find their main topic of interest, not every product or widget. If you make them have to search through one hundred links for every "site map" page, you will quickly lose those visitors to your competitors.

Designing a site map for search engines is rubbish. If you have a well designed navigation structure, the SE's will easily find every page. For those that think site maps are the key to getting SE's to spider all of your pages, take a look at your logs and see how many times the spiders grab your site map page compared to other pages. If you have the ability, trace the route of the spider from your site map. You might be surprised how little traffic your site map gets from the spiders.

Your best bet is to have a well defined nav structure beginning on your home page. If you add a new page, you can always put a temp or hot link to the new page on your home page since this is the page that the SE's grab the most.

[adbart]

I think I'd agree with golfguy.

But if you're going to put lots of links on a page, DO NOT go over 100 of them. To be safe, put a max of 80 on each page.

This is because Google incurs Pagerank (and hence, SERP) penalties on pages they suspect to be spam or link-farming.

[cspelts]

Originally Posted by HHI_Golf_Guy

Designing a site map for search engines is rubbish.

Google suggests using a site map, so I have to believe it's helpful. In my experience they index my site map less often than my main page, but more often that the rest of my subpages.

I can't find the reference now, but Google used to suggest that you name it sitemap.htm and place it at the root level of your site. Someone on this forum pointed this out a couple of months ago, and once I renamed from site-map.asp to sitemap.htm, I saw a difference in how often Google indexed the site map. Your experience may differ...

That said, I think it’s entirely possible to design a site map that is useful for users and search engines.

[brian.mark]

We don't currently have a sitemap, but I have noticed 404's for sitemap.htm from Google at various times. Makes me wonder if anyone else has seen this, and does the big G just assume that there is a sitemap if they don't find a link to one anywhere.

Anyone?

Brian.

[cspelts]

Originally Posted by brian.mark

I have noticed 404's for sitemap.htm from Google at various times.

Exactly!

[LLFitness_Derek]

Well thats good to know! I'll definately name the sitemap like google wants and ill watch my link count.

[cbown]

A sitemap is more useful to a spider than a person. You can always build 2. One for people and one for the search engines.

I agree to keep the links to 100 per page or less. I have been working on some sitemapping tools for a number of years and have some technology that works not only for users, but for spiders as well.

If you are interested take a look.

http://www.awsmsitemap.com

http://teamtaebo.awsmsitemap.com

[adbart]

I would venture to say that most users are not interested in sitemaps.

They are full of text, uncondusive to reading, and generally not very fun to navigate.

I can see the advantage of having one in order to give your deep linking strategy some 'oomph' when it comes to SEO.

[johngroup]

The amount of code, including useless scripting, should be kept to a minimum.

[Lori99]

Originally Posted by adbart

I would venture to say that most users are not interested in sitemaps.

I disagree. Not sure if it's because I work for a web firm or not, but I am always interested in site maps. Especially sites that are full of information, but only have 5 or 6 main navigation elements on the index page. If I am seeking a certain type of information, I start with the site map rather than search frantically through out the site. And depending on the SEARCH tool on a web site, I have found that site maps are more valuable than the search function on some sites.

I also agree with Golf_Guy, there isn't a need to have every product or widget displayed in the site map, break it down into categories.

This recently designed site has well over 100 pages, but we broke down the site map into about 20 categories.
http://www.outdoorcleaning.com/sitemap/index.cfm

And after reading the posts about sitemap.htm, Im going to change the way this page is addressed. Thanks!

[cbown]

Like I said before I have been researching and working on sitemaps for years as part of my job. I have found that pages linked on the sitemap do much better than those not linked and it is a direct relationship.

Getting people to the proper page once they are on your site is or should be the goal of your homepage. The goal of the sitemap at least for me is to get the spiders to the most important pages on my site. That usually means linking the majority of the pages of my site from the sitemap.

Building a nice link structure internal to your site is key and the link structure coming in and out of your site is important to gaining relivance with google.

[adbart]

I'm with cbown on this one, Lori.

I look at sitemaps too - but only when I'm working! As far as I'm concerned, their only real purpose is for making sure you've got good inter-linking that keeps SE spiders happy :)

I'll only ever look at a sitemap if I'm truly lost.

[cspelts]

When I designed a new site recently I used three kinds of navigation, a nav bar on the left with only the major pages linked and then you drill down, a drop down menu with major and some of the main sub pages listed but renamed slightly, and a site map.

When the site launched I made a point to watch several people as they discovered the site for the first time. It was interesting to see who used what type of navigation - especially since several headed straight for the site map!

Personally I usually look for a site map if I can't find what I want through browsing - but there are some people that don't want to browse, they want to use a site map and go straight to the page they want.

I now believe even more firmly in providing different kinds of navigation for different kinds of people - including site maps!

[cbown]

I don't think anybody is say don't provide one, or make it so that a person can't use it. In the end it is a person that the site is built for and Google is trying to reverse engineer how a person uses the internet and/or a website.

My company started with the idea to make websites easier to navigate and we found that our systems work well with the search engines. So as we have evolved we make the homepage of each site we build for the human browser with the search engines in mind, and the sitemap for the search engines with the human browser in mind.

In doing usability studies on our websites we found that if a human being can't find what they are looking for on the first page they get to from the search engine, they hit the back button and go to the next site. That is the struggle we all have. Using a sitemap to promote pages deeper in the site is a good technique to get people to the proper page the first time they visit from the search engine.

If I can find what I want right away the first time I visit your site, I will be back.

[cspelts]

I was agreeing with you cbown - I'm a firm believer in site maps for people and search engines! I just wanted to mention the results of my mini usability study!

[cbown]

Cool, not trying to be confrontational. :)

[adbart]

Lol, yes. We don't seem to get too much of that here!

(Fortunate or unfortunate?) Hmm...

[cbown]

Just part of reading these things and each person putting their own spin on what is said.

I was going to put in my last post. "It wasn't what you typed, it was the tone you typed it in". Thought that would be a little funny. :)

[adbart]

Haha, yes.

I think to a certain extent, a bit of aggravation is healthy on forums...

I wouldn't say I was advocating verbal violence, just that a bit of 'spice' sometimes brings out the best arguements... lol.

Ok I'll be quiet now :)