Sitemap.xml need to aid search engine discovery of Schema.org terms #1483

Open
RichardWallis opened this Issue Jan 19, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@RichardWallis
Contributor

RichardWallis commented Jan 19, 2017

Schema.org terms and descriptions are not always easily discoverable via search engines. This is also reflected in the quality of the schema.org site search powered by Google Custom Search.

Creation of a sitemap file to direct search engine crawlers should go someway towards solving this issue.

@RichardWallis RichardWallis self-assigned this Jan 19, 2017

RichardWallis added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2017

Add buildsitemap.py script to build sitemap
Updated robots.txt to link to the produced sitemap
Fix for issue (#1483)
@AymenLoukil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AymenLoukil

AymenLoukil Jan 25, 2017

I also suggest to create an HTML sitemap listing all the terms / vocabs ( alphabetical / chronological order) linking to single pages.

I also suggest to create an HTML sitemap listing all the terms / vocabs ( alphabetical / chronological order) linking to single pages.

@bhaugen bhaugen referenced this issue in valueflows/valueflows Jan 25, 2017

Closed

Link Dumps 2017 #172

@Aaranged

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Aaranged

Aaranged Jan 27, 2017

+1 @RichardWallis

Question (and fair warning, it's a bit of a trick question), which one of these two URLs would you select to publish in your sitemap?:
http://schema.org/Thing
https://schema.org/Thing

Think you can see where I'm going here. Permitting a web page to be accessed under both HTTP and HTTPS is decidedly not a best practice. And in terms of which formulation to prefer, (Google is unambiguous in regard to preference here).

Any support this year for my annual proposal that schema.org URIs be canonicalized under HTTPS, with the HTTP version 301 redirecting to the HTTPS version? Apologies if I can't recall some deal-breaking objection as to why this is not possible (i.e. it breaks some functionality). Perhaps absent any quick responses I'll just open a new issue proposing that (and rolling the use of rel="canonical" into this).

+1 @RichardWallis

Question (and fair warning, it's a bit of a trick question), which one of these two URLs would you select to publish in your sitemap?:
http://schema.org/Thing
https://schema.org/Thing

Think you can see where I'm going here. Permitting a web page to be accessed under both HTTP and HTTPS is decidedly not a best practice. And in terms of which formulation to prefer, (Google is unambiguous in regard to preference here).

Any support this year for my annual proposal that schema.org URIs be canonicalized under HTTPS, with the HTTP version 301 redirecting to the HTTPS version? Apologies if I can't recall some deal-breaking objection as to why this is not possible (i.e. it breaks some functionality). Perhaps absent any quick responses I'll just open a new issue proposing that (and rolling the use of rel="canonical" into this).

@AymenLoukil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AymenLoukil

AymenLoukil Jan 27, 2017

@Aaranged There are already some issues about http / https :

#1486 and #1325

@Aaranged There are already some issues about http / https :

#1486 and #1325

@Aaranged

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Aaranged

Aaranged Jan 27, 2017

Thanks @AymenLoukil - in fact just came back to this issue to see that I had seen #1325 and so to ignore my comment. :)

Thanks @AymenLoukil - in fact just came back to this issue to see that I had seen #1325 and so to ignore my comment. :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment