html sitemap VS xml Sitemap

Tariel Zivzivadze · 10-09-2007, 06:48 AM

Which of them do you prefer and why?

EdC · 10-09-2007, 07:40 AM

any sitemap is better than none

Its about what do you want to accomplish

do you want a sitemap for machines or people

so why not both

Ed

coolguy27 · 10-09-2007, 08:08 AM

xml is the basic format for sitemap... You can use both they are easier to be crawl by SEs....

noob_0001 · 10-09-2007, 09:21 AM

HTML Sitemap is used by people find content on your site. You should have one to help people find what they are looking for. This can also be crawled by the search engines

XML Sitemap is designed for robots from Google and Yahoo, and Ask to cut down on their resources used to index the web. This file is usually generated by a program, so you need a program to make one. People do not use this to find the content that they are looking for.

You need both for your site.

corlock · 10-09-2007, 09:26 AM

html is more like easy to understand than xml, still, both of them are a good format for making a site map.

bogs · 10-09-2007, 12:00 PM

google prefer xml format sitemap... and txt format for yahoo... thats is what you gonna submit to them... for SE purpose and for your site as for visitor purpose.. html is fine...

Thomas Schulz · 10-09-2007, 05:58 PM

You may like this article explaining the details different kinds of sitemaps combined with code examples.

Anyways, the answer is not so much "which" as to why not have both? A well linked HTML sitemap (i.e. highly linked internally within your website) can help push some importance to your deeper pages. For general faster indexing and having search engines discover changes, use XML sitemaps.

harsha22 · 10-10-2007, 01:45 AM

I use both types of sitemaps. Sitemaps is just to provide all the info related to the website in a simple manner. So doesnt matter much which type we use.

Johan007 · 10-10-2007, 03:29 AM

A well implemented website is far better than any sitemap.

ptamdagr8 · 10-10-2007, 04:26 AM

i prefer XML, i think google prefers it, i read it somewhere but forgot where.

zagu060807 · 10-10-2007, 09:01 AM

I prefer both because HTML is user friendly, easy for visitors to browse. XML sitemaps are majorly used for SE purposes.

info4beingrich · 10-10-2007, 05:23 PM

I think having both is good since xml is easy for google and html is easy for your readers.. a total win - win situation

Steven_D · 10-15-2007, 03:42 AM

have both plus a txt one aswel

tzd · 10-15-2007, 06:49 AM

Do both. XML for Google, HTML version called in the robots tag for YAHOO and MSN.

wayzee · 11-26-2007, 10:44 AM

both type of sitemaps are good has their own importance as mentioned above by the guys

Limtex · 11-28-2007, 01:40 AM

I preffer both .html and .xml

VirtualHoney · 12-15-2007, 07:32 PM

I have both html and xml as well. I find it useful to have both just in case one fails me

tzd · 12-15-2007, 08:40 PM

I insist, use both. One serves as a direct feed, and the other serves as deeplinking from within your site.

They are both important in their own way.

eXweso · 12-16-2007, 02:09 AM

HTML for users and XML for search engines.

kenneth.robert · 01-25-2008, 02:45 AM

Dynamic sitemaps (xml sitemap) should be preferred for the site because it automatically updates itself whenever any new page being added to your site. While in static sitemap (Html) you will have to provide manual entry for this page.