Comments on: Should I Use an HTML or a XML Sitemap on My Site?

By: Digital Recipe

Digital Recipe — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:36:06 +0000

Great article! Especially the ‘site:’ operator tip. Such a god-send that one. I generally agree that HTML sitemaps aren’t needed for smaller sites.

By: sam

sam — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:05:04 +0000

Thanks for the clear explanation of both. I wasn’t clear about the difference.
In my opinion we should use both, XML sitemap is lightweight and good for submitting in google webmasters tools whereas HTML sitemap is good for your blog visitors.

By: Prue

Prue — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:31 +0000

An XML sitemap for Google and other search engines is essential, but I believe that a site with a well thought out navigation would not need a HTML version for the user?

By: Umesh

Umesh — Tue, 11 May 2010 00:44:15 +0000

That was very good explanation. I removed my HTML and submitted XML sitemap to google. Lets hope it will help me.

Thanks a lot.

By: Jason Lancaster

Jason Lancaster — Sun, 09 May 2010 21:31:32 +0000

As a professional SEO dude, I say with the greatest confidence that you should ALWAYS have an XML sitemap (provided your site has more than a few pages, anyways). It is by far the easiest way to make sure that Google, Yahoo, and Bing understand your website content.

It’s certainly true than a website will be successful without an XML sitemap, but I’ve found that to be the exception rather than the rule.

By: Kokteyl Tarifleri

Kokteyl Tarifleri — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:59:55 +0000

I use WordPress as CMS. So I use the most common plugin, Google XML Sitemaps. I guess I will use Clean Archives plugin too.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 02 May 2010 14:20:57 +0000

Google likes XML, but for users it is easier to navigate through a HTML map. So both sitemaps – XML and HTML – are of beneficial.

By: Allen | social media marketing

Allen | social media marketing — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:19:24 +0000

Yes, an Xml site-map normally helps to make sure that bots discover all the links which may not be discovered in their general crawling process! And it is suggestive to have HTML sitemap placed in your website where people can see it! Or that won’t make sense to have an Html Sitemap either!

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:40:45 +0000

Interesting post and great explanation between the two different types of sitemaps. I have always had a xml sitemap for google but I think it is time to add a html version as well. Thanks for the info.

By: Fazreen

Fazreen — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:50:48 +0000

I’m using the default archives template from thesis theme. However I prefer using clean archives plugin but to speed up my blog I remove the plugin. Then I use the default template.

So my question is, which one better, thesis archives template or clean archives wp plugin?

By: SND

SND — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:07:41 +0000

Hi, thank you for the post. I got much clear idea about sitemaps.

Lets say if I’ve 600 links and according to you for every 100 links I should create a sitemap file. ie I would have 6 sitemap files. Don’t you think it seems a bit awkward? SO what would be the appropriate solution?

How would I name those multiple sitemap files?

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:27:08 +0000

I like XML sites maps and till now i have used XML for my site as well as all client web sites as they give you more flexibility what to get indexed and at what speed

By: Pankaj - BloggersDesire

Pankaj - BloggersDesire — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:08:52 +0000

In reply to Daniel Scocco. In my opinion we should use both, XML sitemap is lightweight and good for submitting in google webmasters tools whereas HTML sitemap is good for your blog visitors.

By: Glen

Glen — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:33:17 +0000

I use both html and XML site maps. That means normal visitors don’t have any problems and bots don’t have any problems. Thanks for clearing that up Daniel.

By: Kim

Kim — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:44:50 +0000

Do html sitemaps include indexing for images and videos? XML ones have added that recently. Since my site is mostly images of themes, I’ve found that to be really useful.

By: Dave Doolin

Dave Doolin — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:29:17 +0000

I have an HTML site map for visitors use, human readers.

An XML sitemap goes to Google once a day (after I post).

By: S Emerson

S Emerson — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:55:34 +0000

Every site needs to have a tradtional site map (what Daniel referred to as a HTML site map)! Read any usability book and it’s on the list of must have.

The traditional site map can be used by visitors when they get lost on your site/blog. It also helps all the search bots find your other pages on the site, unlike the Sitemaps protocol.

The Sitemaps protocol (note the spelling and capital S) is only supported by certain search bots (the biggies at the moment) but why cut off all the “other” search bots that could provide you with incoming links and listings by only using the Sitemaps protocol?

If you believe the Sitemaps protocol gets your site indexed faster (it doesn’t, but believe what you want) then have both.

Heck, sometimes I forget where I filed something on a site and use the traditional site map to find it. LOL

By: Daniel Scocco

Daniel Scocco — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:02:28 +0000

In reply to Dev | Technshare. As I mentioned, having both won't harm you either, so no need to remove one.

By: Dev | Technshare

Dev | Technshare — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:26:46 +0000

Hey !!

Currently I’m using both HTML & XML for Sitemap and haven’t faced any problem.

Though thanks for the explanation !!! 🙂

What do you think should i remove one?

Cheers
Dev

By: Josh Garcia

Josh Garcia — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:43:14 +0000

Hey Daniel,

Since the beginning I’ve been using XML sitemap. I don’t have any problems with Google indexing my post or pages.

Thanks for the clear explanation of both. I wasn’t clear about the difference.

Have a great weekend…
Josh