Yo Davidoff!

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Forgot your first name sorry.

This from oneupweb;

To properly use Google Sitemaps, Webmasters must know how to:

upload files to web server
format XML files
install and run server scripts (Python version 2.2 must be installed
on your server)
“Keep in mind,” warns Kauffold, “Google Sitemaps does not guarantee
all your pages will be indexed

Um. It looks like Python does have to run on your server and not on
your local machine unless they make the same error I do. Also if the
sitemap service doesn't guarantee indexing then, er, why for they do

www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
        seo that watches the river flow...

Re: Yo Davidoff!

Big Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Thanks for that info. In fact Kauffold is wrong. I ran the sitemap tool
on my staging server, produced a sitemap for one of my sites from the
local directory and from a url list (for the dynamic content which
follows a simple naming scheme which I didn't want the tool to traverse)
and uploaded it earlier. Google has now parsed the sitemap and... well
who knows what it is doing?

 From what Kauffold says it is clear he hasn't actually tried to use
this tool and is just waffling.

BTW agree with your sentiments earlier in this thread.

FWIW this is what I've written on my website:

"The sitemap tool can take a list of URLs from a variety of sources
including Apache format log files, a local directory (either on the web
server itself or on a staging server), a list of URLs in a text file or
specific URLs passed to the program via a configuration file. The
program then produces a sitemap file in the correct format.

Google claims that the SEO implications of sitemaps are neutral. They
suggest it can be used to tell the robot about files that cannot easily
be reached by following links on the site. It would also seem useful to
stop the robot from re-indexing pages that change very infrequently,
thus saving bandwidth on the server. However pages with no inbound-links
will not feature very highly (if at all) in search results except for
very obscure searches."

To run the sitemap tool install Python, edit your config.xml file to
point and erm, that's it. It produces a sitemap.xml file, tries to
upload this to your server (not sure which protocol it uses to do this)
and pings google. I did the upload manually. Assuming the mod times on
your local filesystem or staging server reflect when you last updated a
file this makes as much sense as running it on your real webserver - who
would install possibly insecure software on their webserver anyways?
There have already been reports of the sitemap tool running wild
traversing sites with dynamically generated content.

http://www.abcseo.com /

Re: Yo Davidoff!


Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is what puzzled me about the thing.  Surely to be of real use to
Google, it needs to be fairly easy for the average webmaster to use?  I
don't think the average webmaster will want to install Python just for
this, let alone the potential risks of running the thing on your webserver
and have it slow to a crawl.  And I don't think Python *is* widely
installed: I was looking for hosting with Python /option to install Python
a year or so back for a special project, and there really weren't many
options then.

Has anyone else tried it (the google sitemapper, not Python)?  I thought
about it for 5 minutes and decided it wasn't worth the hassle, myself.

Clare Associates Ltd
http://www.clareassoc.co.uk /

Re: Yo Davidoff!

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:09:00 +0100, Victoria Clare

Quoted text here. Click to load it

as opposed to ebing harder than creating a navigable site? Hence my
points about this being just the R&D dept justifying their existence.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I tried one of the extant variants and got bored. I don't need it.
Which leads us neatly to my next post coming any minute......

www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
        seo that watches the river flow...

Re: Yo Davidoff!

Big Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree, it seems like a lot of hard work for what Google claims is no
SEO benefit. Like you guys I'm dubious about content that cannot be

Site Timeline