Comments on: Sitemaps – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ The Web Practitioner's Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:58:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Tom http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-41057 Tom Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:22:00 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-41057 You might also look into e.g. SlickMap: http://astuteo.com/slickmap/ Here's an example: http://www.trcompu.com/Graphic-sitemap.html You might also look into e.g. SlickMap:
http://astuteo.com/slickmap/

Here’s an example:
http://www.trcompu.com/Graphic-sitemap.html

]]> By: Graham Sanders http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-21698 Graham Sanders Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:45:32 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-21698 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/ 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/

]]> By: mlcdir http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18859 mlcdir Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:43:23 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18859 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. 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.

]]> By: Monica http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18841 Monica Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:26:46 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18841 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. 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.

]]> By: Bret Bouchard http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18834 Bret Bouchard Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:03:25 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18834 I love how CMS'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. I love how CMS’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.

]]> By: Robert Mills http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18823 Robert Mills Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:01:10 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18823 Hey, I agree with you both, ugly and bad. Isn'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. Hey,

I agree with you both, ugly and bad. Isn’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.

]]> By: Tim http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18756 Tim Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:52:22 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18756 Well I would categorize it as 'The Bad' as well, can't find anything! Let's go for the Apple alike ;-)! Well I would categorize it as ‘The Bad’ as well, can’t find anything! Let’s go for the Apple alike ;-)!

]]> By: Nicole Foster http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18747 Nicole Foster Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:27:32 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18747 Now that I think about it, I can see a single-page website having a sitemap, but it would be focused on the different "sections" 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. Now that I think about it, I can see a single-page website having a sitemap, but it would be focused on the different “sections” 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.

]]> By: Tom Something http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18744 Tom Something Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:10:54 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18744 I have an xml file that keeps track of page url'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? I have an xml file that keeps track of page url’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?

]]> By: Oleg http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18704 Oleg Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:40:47 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18704 Very Nice Article. I saw the sitemap of Winter Olympic Games 2010 site last day, it's really "The Ugly" :) http://www.vancouver2010.com/sitemap/ 1000000 chilometers long. Very Nice Article. I saw the sitemap of Winter Olympic Games 2010 site last day, it’s really “The Ugly” :) http://www.vancouver2010.com/sitemap/ 1000000 chilometers long.

]]> By: Tristan Botly http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18689 Tristan Botly Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:13:41 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18689 Interesting article... I have to say I don'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 ' if you’re a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn’t even bother'. I would like to see a site-map for a one page site, well two counting the site-map :) Interesting article…
I have to say I don’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 ‘ if you’re a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn’t even bother’. I would like to see a site-map for a one page site, well two counting the site-map :)

]]> By: Robert Mills http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18672 Robert Mills Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:15:48 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18672 Hi John, I actually used Slickplan today for the first time and not only was it quick and easy but the sitemaps produced were very legible and perfect for showing to clients. Thanks for sharing that. Rob. Hi John,

I actually used Slickplan today for the first time and not only was it quick and easy but the sitemaps produced were very legible and perfect for showing to clients.

Thanks for sharing that.

Rob.

]]> By: Nina http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18653 Nina Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:18:42 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18653 Great and useful post, will definitely use it for future reference. Thanks for sharing :D Great and useful post, will definitely use it for future reference.
Thanks for sharing :D

]]> By: Nicole Foster http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18576 Nicole Foster Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:06:08 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18576 Sitemaps are never bad or ugly unless it's unusable or not there. If you have a large website, a sitemap that clearly lays out where everything is would be essential for SEO and for the user in general. What if the user is lost and doesn't know where to go? Oh look, a handy sitemap! Now, if you're a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn't even bother because both types of websites are very easy to navigate if everything is placed in front of the user's view. Sitemaps are never bad or ugly unless it’s unusable or not there.

If you have a large website, a sitemap that clearly lays out where everything is would be essential for SEO and for the user in general. What if the user is lost and doesn’t know where to go? Oh look, a handy sitemap!

Now, if you’re a smaller website or single-paged website, I wouldn’t even bother because both types of websites are very easy to navigate if everything is placed in front of the user’s view.

]]> By: James Downes http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18574 James Downes Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:57:36 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18574 An interesting article. As a UX Designer, I must confess to having overlooked sitemaps in the past. I had always assumed that they were only useful for search engines, or as a fallback for poor navigation design. To test my (baseless) theory, I put a quick poll together (http://twtpoll.com/4hj1dt). Not a huge response so far, but I can see that my assumption was incorrect – around 25% of people do use sitemaps when browsing a website. This is a significant percentage so mustn't be overlooked (a lesson learned, for me at least). The article seems to suggest that the better sitemaps rely less heavily on presenting the architecture in a traditional tree-style hierarchy. Users don't think of a site's structure as a tree, so why present your site map like one? I've recently been rather taken with the emergence of the so-called "Mega drop-down". These present the user with a lot more information than the almost ubiquitous typical drop-down menus and can be (according to Jakob Nielsen) quite usable – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mega-dropdown-menus.html. Like Apple's sitemap, these can be used to present sections and sub-sections in an aesthetically pleasing and useful way which doesn't need to be constrained by the cascading, tree hierarchies we're so used to seeing. I for one will spend time on future projects looking more closely at sitemaps – perhaps we'll have to stop hiding the sitemap link in the footer from now on? An interesting article. As a UX Designer, I must confess to having overlooked sitemaps in the past. I had always assumed that they were only useful for search engines, or as a fallback for poor navigation design. To test my (baseless) theory, I put a quick poll together (http://twtpoll.com/4hj1dt). Not a huge response so far, but I can see that my assumption was incorrect – around 25% of people do use sitemaps when browsing a website. This is a significant percentage so mustn’t be overlooked (a lesson learned, for me at least).

The article seems to suggest that the better sitemaps rely less heavily on presenting the architecture in a traditional tree-style hierarchy. Users don’t think of a site’s structure as a tree, so why present your site map like one?

I’ve recently been rather taken with the emergence of the so-called “Mega drop-down”. These present the user with a lot more information than the almost ubiquitous typical drop-down menus and can be (according to Jakob Nielsen) quite usable – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mega-dropdown-menus.html. Like Apple’s sitemap, these can be used to present sections and sub-sections in an aesthetically pleasing and useful way which doesn’t need to be constrained by the cascading, tree hierarchies we’re so used to seeing.

I for one will spend time on future projects looking more closely at sitemaps – perhaps we’ll have to stop hiding the sitemap link in the footer from now on?

]]> By: Stephanie http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18573 Stephanie Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:41:57 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18573 I resort to browsing through sitemaps if the site has difficult navigation, or coyly skirts around the information you want to find. With small enough websites I wouldn't use a sitemap, even for SEO purposes, unless the content lends itself to similar-looking pages, perhaps data. With larger site, such as a site with an e-commerce section, I would be more likely to use a search, thinking that the sitemap would list every product. Overall though, I'd love to see sitemaps and search functions used more. I resort to browsing through sitemaps if the site has difficult navigation, or coyly skirts around the information you want to find. With small enough websites I wouldn’t use a sitemap, even for SEO purposes, unless the content lends itself to similar-looking pages, perhaps data. With larger site, such as a site with an e-commerce section, I would be more likely to use a search, thinking that the sitemap would list every product. Overall though, I’d love to see sitemaps and search functions used more.

]]> By: Jordan Walker http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18571 Jordan Walker Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:26:43 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18571 This is one often over looked aspect of building a website. This is one often over looked aspect of building a website.

]]> By: codesquid http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18568 codesquid Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:20:23 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18568 I think that once a site reaches a certain size, and has a lot of pages, then you are going to need either a search function, a sitemap or both. Sitemaps can become large and complex, but then they are usually a last resort anyway, a user will probably try to use the main navigation and searchbar first! I think that once a site reaches a certain size, and has a lot of pages, then you are going to need either a search function, a sitemap or both. Sitemaps can become large and complex, but then they are usually a last resort anyway, a user will probably try to use the main navigation and searchbar first!

]]> By: Tony http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18567 Tony Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:00:59 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18567 I use XML Sitemap generator for my site maps. On their site, http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/, you can generate a site map of up to 500 pages for free of buy the full version for something like $20. Once I have generated a site map I always submit an XML version to Google which I think is an excellent way to get indexed. Recently a client site had only 46 pages indexed out of a possible 300. After I submitted an XML sitemap every page was listed very quickly. I use XML Sitemap generator for my site maps. On their site, http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/, you can generate a site map of up to 500 pages for free of buy the full version for something like $20.

Once I have generated a site map I always submit an XML version to Google which I think is an excellent way to get indexed. Recently a client site had only 46 pages indexed out of a possible 300. After I submitted an XML sitemap every page was listed very quickly.

]]> By: KZeni http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18559 KZeni Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:41:32 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18559 I build the site map as an XML file that search engines can crawl easily, but also provide an XSL file (http://www.w3schools.com/xsl/) that styles the XML data to match the website. That way you get the best of both worlds. I build the site map as an XML file that search engines can crawl easily, but also provide an XSL file (http://www.w3schools.com/xsl/) that styles the XML data to match the website. That way you get the best of both worlds.

]]> By: John Faulds http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18557 John Faulds Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:02:07 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18557 A good tool to help create more attractive sitemaps is <a href="http://www.slickplan.com/create.php" rel="nofollow">Slickplan</a>. A good tool to help create more attractive sitemaps is Slickplan.

]]> By: Kit http://thinkvitamin.com/design/sitemaps-%e2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-18556 Kit Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:07:06 +0000 http://carsonified.com/?p=4541#comment-18556 Sitemap is for usability, and SEO as a second. If the site is so small, you can reach each page at top tier from the main menu, its hardly worth the trouble, if its larger, it can be worth it, if its huge, you've got to ask yourself to what extent you'll need one. Google recommends that if your sitemap is over 100 pages, you should split it into subpages - not xml sitemaps, the real physical pages. Partially usability, and partially because too many links on a page make it look like a farm? Also as a project manager, I like to draw out hierarchy and/or sitemap when seeking content or having received content for a new site, as more often than not, there's been scope creep, and you'll find the client has sent content for a part of the website that was only expected to be a page long, and is now six, and that you have no content for the most important areas. Sitemap is for usability, and SEO as a second. If the site is so small, you can reach each page at top tier from the main menu, its hardly worth the trouble, if its larger, it can be worth it, if its huge, you’ve got to ask yourself to what extent you’ll need one.

Google recommends that if your sitemap is over 100 pages, you should split it into subpages – not xml sitemaps, the real physical pages. Partially usability, and partially because too many links on a page make it look like a farm?

Also as a project manager, I like to draw out hierarchy and/or sitemap when seeking content or having received content for a new site, as more often than not, there’s been scope creep, and you’ll find the client has sent content for a part of the website that was only expected to be a page long, and is now six, and that you have no content for the most important areas.

]]>