<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sitemaps – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/</link>
	<description>A blog about the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:20:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Sanders</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-21698</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Sanders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-21698</guid>
		<description>Hi

Out of interest do the Mac owning users out there use iGooMap for XML site map generation? I personally find it quite useful:http://www.pointworks.de/software/igoomap/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p>
<p>Out of interest do the Mac owning users out there use iGooMap for XML site map generation? I personally find it quite useful:http://www.pointworks.de/software/igoomap/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mlcdir</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18859</link>
		<dc:creator>mlcdir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18859</guid>
		<description>I guess sitemaps are good for bots ; but i wonder why there is so much difference between the number of indexed pages in Google webmasters and the number is can check if I use SeoQuake with FireFox.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess sitemaps are good for bots ; but i wonder why there is so much difference between the number of indexed pages in Google webmasters and the number is can check if I use SeoQuake with FireFox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monica</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18841</link>
		<dc:creator>Monica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18841</guid>
		<description>interesting... does the good outweigh the bad with sitemaps? do people actually use them? i thought they are more to appease search engines like google.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interesting&#8230; does the good outweigh the bad with sitemaps? do people actually use them? i thought they are more to appease search engines like google.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bret Bouchard</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18834</link>
		<dc:creator>Bret Bouchard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18834</guid>
		<description>I love how CMS&#039;s have removed the need to even worry about sitemaps. I use modx and have been using the google sitemaps for abut 3 years now. So much easier then manually updating a central page every time a client adds a new article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love how CMS&#8217;s have removed the need to even worry about sitemaps. I use modx and have been using the google sitemaps for abut 3 years now. So much easier then manually updating a central page every time a client adds a new article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Mills</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18823</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Mills</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18823</guid>
		<description>Hey,

I agree with you both, ugly and bad. Isn&#039;t it ironic that something that is meant to be helpful and useful is anything but. 

Is the fact that so many sitemaps are bad or ugly, a sign that their days are numbered? 

I still think sitemaps are needed but not when they are like that Olympic one.

Good example, thanks for sharing.

Rob.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey,</p>
<p>I agree with you both, ugly and bad. Isn&#8217;t it ironic that something that is meant to be helpful and useful is anything but. </p>
<p>Is the fact that so many sitemaps are bad or ugly, a sign that their days are numbered? </p>
<p>I still think sitemaps are needed but not when they are like that Olympic one.</p>
<p>Good example, thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>Rob.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18756</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18756</guid>
		<description>Well I would categorize it as &#039;The Bad&#039; as well, can&#039;t find anything! Let&#039;s go for the Apple alike ;-)!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I would categorize it as &#8216;The Bad&#8217; as well, can&#8217;t find anything! Let&#8217;s go for the Apple alike ;-)!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicole Foster</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18747</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicole Foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18747</guid>
		<description>Now that I think about it, I can see a single-page website having a sitemap, but it would be focused on the different &quot;sections&quot; of the page. Maybe explaining what each one is and how it is important to the viewer.

Wow, I wish I came up with this thought earlier. I would have applied it to my old single-page portfolio design.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that I think about it, I can see a single-page website having a sitemap, but it would be focused on the different &#8220;sections&#8221; of the page. Maybe explaining what each one is and how it is important to the viewer.</p>
<p>Wow, I wish I came up with this thought earlier. I would have applied it to my old single-page portfolio design.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Something</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18744</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Something</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18744</guid>
		<description>I have an xml file that keeps track of page url&#039;s, titles, hierarchy, and a few other useful things. Breadcrumbs, title tags, primary/secondary navigation, page-specific contact info, 404 redirection suggestions and some other stuff all rely on this one xml file, so stuff manages to stay fairly consistent site-wide. I have another script that translates this into the xml format that Google likes, so whenever Google sends a robot over to visit, the server cooks up a fresh sitemap.

Does anyone else do something like this, or is my approach really strange?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have an xml file that keeps track of page url&#8217;s, titles, hierarchy, and a few other useful things. Breadcrumbs, title tags, primary/secondary navigation, page-specific contact info, 404 redirection suggestions and some other stuff all rely on this one xml file, so stuff manages to stay fairly consistent site-wide. I have another script that translates this into the xml format that Google likes, so whenever Google sends a robot over to visit, the server cooks up a fresh sitemap.</p>
<p>Does anyone else do something like this, or is my approach really strange?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oleg</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18704</link>
		<dc:creator>Oleg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18704</guid>
		<description>Very Nice Article. I saw the sitemap of Winter Olympic Games 2010 site last day, it&#039;s really &quot;The Ugly&quot; :) http://www.vancouver2010.com/sitemap/ 1000000 chilometers long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very Nice Article. I saw the sitemap of Winter Olympic Games 2010 site last day, it&#8217;s really &#8220;The Ugly&#8221; :) <a href="http://www.vancouver2010.com/sitemap/" rel="nofollow">http://www.vancouver2010.com/sitemap/</a> 1000000 chilometers long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tristan Botly</title>
		<link>http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18689</link>
		<dc:creator>Tristan Botly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18689</guid>
		<description>Interesting article...
I have to say I don&#039;t often use them and was losing interest in having them except for indexing on search engines.

It is clear though that my assumption that no one uses them was incorrect.

I would argue though that there is a difference between a sitemap for a search engine and one for a user. (apart from the file format)

If your site has over a hundred pages a search engine would thank you for pointing out every page I am pretty sure a user would not.

For the users sitemap maybe a manually created version with helpful titles descriptions of large sections of the site would be of more use than a dynamically created one with everything.

Additionally I did smile when Nicole wrote &#039; if you’re a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn’t even bother&#039;.  I would like to see a site-map for a one page site, well two counting the site-map :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article&#8230;<br />
I have to say I don&#8217;t often use them and was losing interest in having them except for indexing on search engines.</p>
<p>It is clear though that my assumption that no one uses them was incorrect.</p>
<p>I would argue though that there is a difference between a sitemap for a search engine and one for a user. (apart from the file format)</p>
<p>If your site has over a hundred pages a search engine would thank you for pointing out every page I am pretty sure a user would not.</p>
<p>For the users sitemap maybe a manually created version with helpful titles descriptions of large sections of the site would be of more use than a dynamically created one with everything.</p>
<p>Additionally I did smile when Nicole wrote &#8216; if you’re a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn’t even bother&#8217;.  I would like to see a site-map for a one page site, well two counting the site-map :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
