Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Does a KML file have to be indexed by Google?
-
I'm currently using the Yoast Local SEO plugin for WordPress to generate my KML file which is linked to from the GeoSitemap. Check it out http://www.holycitycatering.com/sitemap_index.xml.
A competitor of mine just told me that this isn't correct and that the link to the KML should be a downloadable file that's indexed in Google. This is the opposite of what Yoast is saying... "He's wrong.
And the KML isn't a file, it's being rendered. You wouldn't want it to be indexed anyway, you just want Google to find the information in there.What is the best way to create a KML? Should it be indexed?
-
There isn't really a good way that I know of currently to verify Google has indexed it...
-
Thanks for getting back! I wanted to show you a screenshot of my GWT. The geo_sitemap.xml is crawled with no errors but the locations.kml that it's linking to is never seen. That being said, how it the KML being seen by Google? Is there some way that I can verify?
-
Yeah we might as well ditch that
but yeah it's crawled as a normal XML file as it doesn't give any errors at all in GWT. -
Thanks for chiming in on this, Joost.
I wasn't 100% certain that geo_sitemap.xml was a problem, but the xmlns reference to http://www.google.com/geo/schemas/sitemap/1.0 in line 2 I thought might be throwing Google off - I take it they'll just ignore this and crawl the doc as any other XML file?
Thanks again.
-
I'm sorry to say Mike above is wrong. He's been deceived by the file name and didn't actually look to see what it did I guess. Our geo_sitemap.xml file is a normal XML sitemap, linking to the KML file, it's not actually a geo sitemap, it's just named that way for historic reasons.
See the first question on this thread and Susan Moskwa's answer: https://plus.google.com/+SusanMoskwa/posts/CmZejMkLN4r
-
Hi Anthony,
Sorry for the delay on this. In migrating over to the new Moz.com platform, Q&A messaging for admins has been a bit spotty.
You are right - geositemap.xml is using the "geo sitemap" protocol that Google no longer supports. This may cause Google not to follow the reference to locations.kml contained therein.
Unfortunately I don't have an alternative recommendation to Yoast's SEO plugin for this. Manually creating your XML may be your best option, or using software like GSiteCrawler to speed up the process, then manually add your KML file.
If this output from Yoast's plugin can't be manually configured, and the KML file is important enough to your goals that you consider it a top priority to have it crawled, it seems a clear choice to me to move away from this plugin and find a better solution. Unfortunately, I haven't dealt with KML files for WordPress in the past. I'd probably recommend site crawling software to speed up the process, then switching to manual to add this in.
Best,
Mike -
Hi Mike,
I think I'm starting to understand where you are going with this. It sounds like I need to index the KML using a link from the footer of the site instead of from the geositemap that Yoast creates since Google won't crawl it or past it.
I read on Google Sitemap page:
"We recommmend that you tell Google about geographically-based URLs by including them in a regular Web Sitemap."
If the KML is referrenced in the sitemap_index.xml, then it's being seen by Google but if the geositemap.xml is between the sitemap_index.xml and the locations.kml, then it is hidden from Google.
All of this is being controlled by the an SEO plugin for WordPress from Yoast. I am wondering if I need to create the KML manually and upload to the sitemap or if should I let Yoast continue to render it. Mike, do you use a specific tool/plugin for KML creation for Wordpress websites?
-
Hi Anthony,
"Indexed in Google" is irrelevant here. Sitemap protocol and the searchable web index have little to do with each other directly (sitemap files are not searchable in the web index).
If you're following the instructions on this page, you're good. Geo sitemap tags are no longer supported by Google.
Note: When I click on the link to http://www.holycitycatering.com/geo_sitemap.xml your server returns a "page not found" error, so I'm not sure where your geo URLs are located...
-Mike
-
If google webmaster tools doesn't return an error on when you test the sitemap then it should be indexing it fine.
-
How do you know know if Google can see the KML? It's not been listed in any of the search results for our sites using this plugin and this competitor is telling my client I'm wrong because you can't see the file in Google Webmasters.
I guess the main question is if Google isn't indexing the KML and Webmaster Tools doesn't index it, how do we know it sees the file?
-
There's one rule in SEO, Yoast is always right
(not only because he's Dutch). But in this case he's right. By mentioning the KML file to Google it knows where it could be found. So it will trigger a visit to the file which get generated on the fly + by doing this it prevents you from being indexed.
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
-
Best and easiest Google Depersonalization method
Hello, Moz hasn't written anything about depersonalization for years. This article has methods, but I don't know if they are valid anymore. What's an easy, effective way to depersonalize Google search these days? I would just log out of Google, but that shows different ranking results than Moz's rank tracker for one of our main keywords, so I don't know if that method is correct. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BobGW0 -
Does Google use dateModified or date Published in its SERPs?
I was curious as to the prioritization of dateCreated / datePublished and dateModified in our microdata and how it affects google search results. I have read some entries online that say Google prioritizes dateModified in SERPs, but others that claim they prioritize datePublished or dateCreated. Do you know (or could you point me to some resources) as to whether Google uses dateModified or date Published in its SERPs? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Parse.ly0 -
My Website No Longer Appears in Mobile Google Search but Does in Desktop...Why Is This?
For a long time my website has appeared in both desktop and mobile search in Google. Yet recently it has stopped appearing in mobile yet still on desktop. Any ideas why this is happening and how to rectify it please? Many Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | WSIDW0 -
Is it possible that Google may have erroneous indexing dates?
I am consulting someone for a problem related to copied content. Both sites in question are WordPress (self hosted) sites. The "good" site publishes a post. The "bad" site copies the post (without even removing all internal links to the "good" site) a few days after. On both websites it is obvious the publishing date of the posts, and it is clear that the "bad" site publishes the posts days later. The content thief doesn't even bother to fake the publishing date. The owner of the "good" site wants to have all the proofs needed before acting against the content thief. So I suggested him to also check in Google the dates the various pages were indexed using Search Tools -> Custom Range in order to have the indexing date displayed next to the search results. For all of the copied pages the indexing dates also prove the "bad" site published the content days after the "good" site, but there are 2 exceptions for the very 2 first posts copied. First post:
Algorithm Updates | | SorinaDascalu
On the "good" website it was published on 30 January 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 26 February 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 30 January 2013! Second post:
On the "good" website it was published on 20 March 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 10 May 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 20 March 2013! Is it possible to be an error in the date shown in Google search results? I also asked for help on Google Webmaster forums but there the discussion shifted to "who copied the content" and "file a DMCA complain". So I want to be sure my question is better understood here.
It is not about who published the content first or how to take down the copied content, I am just asking if anybody else noticed this strange thing with Google indexing dates. How is it possible for Google search results to display an indexing date previous to the date the article copy was published and exactly the same date that the original article was published and indexed?0 -
Google is forcing a 301 by truncating our URLs
Just recently we noticed that google has indexed truncated urls for many of our pages that get 301'd to the correct page. For example, we have:
Algorithm Updates | | mmac
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html as the url linked everywhere and that's the only version of that page that we use. Google somehow figured out that it would still go to the right place via 301 if they removed the html filename from the end, so they indexed just: http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/ The 301 is not new. It used to 404, but (probably 5 years ago) we saw a few links come in with the html file missing on similar urls so we decided to 301 them instead thinking it would be helpful. We've preferred the longer version because it has the name in it and users that pay attention to the url can feel more confident they are going to the right place. We've always used the full (longer) url and google used to index them all that way, but just recently we noticed about 1/2 of our urls have been converted to the shorter version in the SERPs. These shortened urls take the user to the right page via 301, so it isn't a case of the user landing in the wrong place, but over 100,000 301s may not be so good. You can look at: site:www.eventective.com/usa/massachusetts/bedford/ and you'll noticed all of the urls to businesses at the top of the listings go to the truncated version, but toward the bottom they have the full url. Can you explain to me why google would index a page that is 301'd to the right page and has been for years? I have a lot of thoughts on why they would do this and even more ideas on how we could build our urls better, but I'd really like to hear from some people that aren't quite as close to it as I am. One small detail that shouldn't affect this, but I'll mention it anyway, is that we have a mobile site with the same url pattern. http://m.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html We did not have the proper 301 in place on the m. site until the end of last week. I'm pretty sure it will be asked, so I'll also mention we have the rel=alternate/canonical set up between the www and m sites. I'm also interested in any thoughts on how this may affect rankings since we seem to have been hit by something toward the end of last week. Don't hesitate to mention anything else you see that may have triggered whatever may have hit us. Thank you,
Michael0 -
Why has my homepage been replaced in Google by my Facebook page?
Hi. I was wondering if others have had this happen to them. Lately, I've noticed that on a couple of my sites the homepage no longer appears in the Google SERP. Instead, a Facebook page I've created appears in the position the homepage used to get. My subpages still get listed in Google--just not the homepage. Obviously, I'd prefer that both the homepage and Facebook page appear. Any thoughts on what's going on? Thanks for your help!
Algorithm Updates | | TuxedoCat0 -
Stop google indexing CDN pages
Just when I thought I'd seen it all, google hits me with another nasty surprise! I have a CDN to deliver images, js and css to visitors around the world. I have no links to static HTML pages on the site, as far as I can tell, but someone else may have - perhaps a scraper site? Google has decided the static pages they were able to access through the CDN have more value than my real pages, and they seem to be slowly replacing my pages in the index with the static pages. Anyone got an idea on how to stop that? Obviously, I have no access to the static area, because it is in the CDN, so there is no way I know of that I can have a robots file there. It could be that I have to trash the CDN and change it to only allow the image directory, and maybe set up a separate CDN subdomain for content that only contains the JS and CSS? Have you seen this problem and beat it? (Of course the next thing is Roger might look at google results and start crawling them too, LOL) P.S. The reason I am not asking this question in the google forums is that others have asked this question many times and nobody at google has bothered to answer, over the past 5 months, and nobody who did try, gave an answer that was remotely useful. So I'm not really hopeful of anyone here having a solution either, but I expect this is my best bet because you guys are always willing to try.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0 -
How do I get the expanded results in a Google search?
I notice for certain site (ex: mint.com) that when I search, the top result has a very detailed view with options to click to different subsections of the site. However for my site, even though we're consistently the top result for our branded terms, the result is still only a single line item. How do I adjust this?
Algorithm Updates | | syount1