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.
Can you have a /sitemap.xml and /sitemap.html on the same site?
-
Thanks in advance for any responses; we really appreciate the expertise of the SEOmoz community!
My question: Since the file extensions are different, can a site have both a /sitemap.xml and /sitemap.html both siting at the root domain?
For example, we've already put the html sitemap in place here: https://www.pioneermilitaryloans.com/sitemap
Now, we're considering adding an XML sitemap. I know standard practice is to load it at the root (www.example.com/sitemap.xml), but am wondering if this will cause conflicts.
I've been unable to find this topic addressed anywhere, or any real-life examples of sites currently doing this.
What do you think?
-
As all 3 of us have said here, Pioneer, there is no issue with setting things up the way you are proposing. Can't make it any clearer than that.
To answer your specific point - /sitemap and /sitemap.xml are categorically NOT seen as the same URL by search engines. They are absolutely considered two different pages. Your statement "...two items with the same url, but different file extensions..." is a non-sequitur. If the URLs have different file extensions, they are by definition NOT the same URL. The file extension (or lack thereof) is an integral part of the URL.
Since 3 different people have given you the same answer and you still don't believe us, why not simply test for yourself?
- Implement the two files as above, then use Google Webmaster Tools to report your XML sitemap location, and confirm that it's finding and recognizing it correctly.
- Then use your browser to go to the URL of the regular sitemap and you'll see that it renders the html version of your sitemap map just fine.
Paul
-
So if I'm understanding you correctly, there's no technical issues with having two items with the same url, but different file extensions, coexisting? I was unable to find any examples of other sites doing this, which is making me question.
I mean, what we're proposing is two separate pieces of content that resolve as:
I want that to work, but it's just amazing to me that it doesn't cause any issues.
-
Just like Oleg & Paul I agree 100% your site may have and it will probably benefit from having both a site map which is a nice feature in HTML format and one in XML format as they are not used for the same purpose by Google nor by individuals so you may safely create a regular webpage in HTML and call it whatever you like if it ends in.XML it is not a forward facing webpage it has a separate use and that uses to tell Google's crawler where you would like it to go now keep in mind Google does not always listen to what we want but site maps can be helpful.
I hope this was of help to you
sincerely,
Thomas
-
As Oleg says - not a problems at all. What you're proposing to do is a pretty standard implementation used by most websites out there.
XML sitemaps are a very specific configuration of data built to a standard that the Search Engines all agreed on - even the naming convention. Spiders are programmed to look for the whole filename (specifically including the .xml suffix) not just the first part of the file name. And yea, connecting to them inside your Webmaster Tools accounts is an extra signal for where the search engines should find them.
Paul
-
Nope, won't cause any problems. The xml sitemap is what you will submit to G and search engines while the HTML one is for your site visitors who want to see all your pages (although it will be crawled and indexed as well).
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
-
Why does a site that is worse than mine by every objective measure I can find, keep outranking me in search?
I’ve been working on educating myself about SEO all day, again. All-Star Telescope up in Canada. We have a competitor that consistently ranks #1 and I don't get it. Their site is full of duplicate content (straight copy and paste from the manufacturer site). They don't have any meaningful blog or video content to add relevance or value to their site. We have higher page authority, higher domain authority, and they keyword analyzer in moz says that our page is higher quality than the the competitors page. Our site is slow, but theirs is slower. I can’t find a single metric on any tool (ubbersuggest, Moz, ahrefs, semrush) that says Telescopes Canada is a better site, or has a better NexStar 8SE product page (a popular telescope). Here’s the link to Telescope Canada’s page for their Celestron 8SE: https://telescopescanada.ca/products/celestron-nexstar-8se-computerized-telescope-11069?_pos=1&_sid=f0aa91cc2&_ss=r Here’s a link to the Celestron 8SE page from the manufacturer website: https://www.celestron.com/products/nexstar-8se-computerized-telescope?_pos=1&_sid=56abdabd4&_ss=r#description Telescopes Canada has just copied and pasted. There is no original content aside from adding the shipping and return policy to the tab, and having some options for selecting accessories on the page. Here is our page: https://all-startelescope.com/products/celestron-nexstar-8se Our titles are good, our metadata is good (but I don’t think that’s been a serious ranking factor for about ten years). The text is original, it’s relevant, we have healthy internal links to the page. We have invensted in some excellent blog content, we’re adding new products to the website so that we rank for more keywords. All of those things are helping, but I fundamentally don’t understand why Telescopes Canada is #1 almost across the board on every key product in our market. There is something that I’m not seeing here, something that isn't being captured by the tools that I have. Is it simple the fact that they get more traffic? Is that why some people go and buy traffic? Can you see any metric, any tool in your toolbox that indicates why they rank at the top, or even higher than we do for in these search terms specific to that product: Celestron NexStar 8SE
Technical SEO | | nkennett
NexStar 8SE
Celestron NexStar 8SE Canada
NexStar 8SE Canada We've worked with two highly ranked SEO's to try and figure this out, one in Canada, and one in the USA. I haven't seen a confidence inspiring answer from either of them. Posting on a forum is a bit of an act of desperation, I'll continue to work the problem, but it's discouraging to see the leader in my industry look like he's just phoning it in with his website.1 -
<sub>& <sup>tags, any SEO issues?</sup></sub>
Hi - the content on our corporate website is pretty technical, and we include chemical element codes in the text that users would search on (like S02, C02, etc.) A lot of times our engineers request that we list the codes correctly, with a <sub>on the last number. Question - does adding this code into the keyword affect SEO? The code would look like SO<sub>2</sub>.</sub> Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Jenny10 -
XML Sitemap and unwanted URL parameters
We currently don't have an XML sitemap for our site. I generated one using Screaming Frog and it looks ok, but it also contains my tracking url parameters (ref=), which I don't want Google to use, as specified in GWT. Cleaning it will require time and effort which I currently don't have. I also think that having one could help us on Bing. So my question is: Is it better to submit a "so-so" sitemap than having none at all, or the risks are just too high? Could you explain what could go wrong? Thanks !
Technical SEO | | jfmonfette0 -
XML Sitemap without PHP
Is it possible to generate an XML sitemap for a site without PHP? If so, how?
Technical SEO | | jeffreytrull11 -
Ror.xml vs sitemap.xml
Hey Mozzers, So I've been reading somethings lately and some are saying that the top search engines do not use ror.xml sitemap but focus just on the sitemap.xml. Is that true? Do you use ror? if so, for what purpose, products, "special articles", other uses? Can sitemap be sufficient for all of those? Thank you, Vadim
Technical SEO | | vijayvasu0 -
Redirecting blog.<mydomain>.com to www.<mydomain>.com\blog</mydomain></mydomain>
This is more of a technical question than pure SEO per se, but I am guessing that some folks here may have covered this and so I would appreciate any questions. I am moving from a WordPress.com-based blog (hosted on WordPress) to a WordPress installation on my own server (as suggested by folks in another thread here). As part of this I want to move from the format blog.<mydomain>.com to www.mydomain.com\blog. I have installed WordPress on my server and have imported posts from the hosted site to my own server. How should I manage the transition from first format to the second? I have a bunch of links on Facebook, etc that refer to URLs of the blog..com format so it's important that I redirect.</mydomain> I am running DotNetNuke/WordPress on my own IIS/ASP.Net servers. Thanks. Mark
Technical SEO | | MarkWill0 -
Content loc and player log tags for XML video site maps
I need a little help understanding how to create two of the required tags for a XML video site map for Google. 1. video:content_loc2.<video:player_loc< p=""></video:player_loc<></video:content_loc> Google explains their Video XML Site map requirements here:
Technical SEO | | dsexton10
www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=80472
Using the example on this Google Web Master Help page (where they explain all six of the required tags) , here are examples of the two tags I need help with: video:content_locwww.example.com/video123.flv</video:content_loc> <video:player_loc allow_embed="yes" autoplay="ap=1">www.example.com/videoplayer.swf?video=12...video:player_loc></video:player_loc> The video I am trying to optimize is located on a page on my site:
www.mountainbikingmaine.com/races/bradbury_hawk.html
This page has an embedded Vimeo video. So I don't have the video file on my domain. It is on Vimeo. Here is source code from my page that I think provides the information I need to create the two tags that Google requires. <iframe src="<a rel=" nofollow"="" href="http://player.vimeo.com/video/24580638?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0"" target="_blank">player.vimeo.com/video/24580638?title=0&...amp;portrait=0"</a> width="400" height="533" frameborder="0"></iframe> [vimeo.com/24580638">Bradbury](<a rel=) Mountain Maine Hawk Migration Count from [vimeo.com/user3219915">dan](<a rel=) sexton Using this source from my site, can you suggest what to put in the two tags? Thanks! Dan0 -
How do I redirect index.html to the root / ?
The site I've inherited had operated on index.html at one point, and now uses index.php for the home page, which goes to the / page. The index.html was lost in migrating server hosts. How do I redirect the index.html to the / page? I've tried different options that keep giving ending up with the same 404 error. I tried a redirect from index.html to index.php which ended in an infinite loop. Because the index.html no longer exists in the root, should I created it and then add a redirect to it? Can I avoid this by editing the .htaccess? Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | NetPicks0