Sitemap Generation and “Ugly” URLs

Hi Garnet,

You did right by submitting the “ugly” sitemap endpoint to Google Search Console. Google should be able to recognize it as a sitemap and treat it as such. We added this feature for the off occasion the “ugly” permalink scheme is used.

Now, WordPress has this nifty feature called “redirect_canonical”. With pretty permalinks, this transforms any “ugly” permalink into a “pretty” one via a 301 redirect. Google will follow these redirects and update their index accordingly without affecting ranking (notably).

So, if you change your permalink settings, you should face no issues. Then, at Google Search Console, you do have to erase the now submitted sitemap and exchange it for the /sitemap.xml one.

The pretty-permalink route is preferred since you add then keywords to the URL. Nevertheless, it’s completely optional.

I hope this informs you well. Do take good care of yourself! Cheers ??

An excellent and speedy reply, Sybre!

I had read that pretty permalinks were superior to ugly ones because the pretty ones help visitors remember the urls to specific webpages, or else at least help the visitor to recognize what subject matter the webpage offered.

In contract, an ugly permalink was utterly anonymous and gave no hint to a potential visitor anything at all about the webpage.

I always figured that if that was all there was to it, then I didn’t see pretty permalinks as that big a deal.

I never before twigged onto the fact that the pretty permalink was in itself an additional seo tool ─ this makes sense to me, now.

However, I am hesitant to try the “redirect_canonical” route you suggested ─ maybe my alarm bells are false, but trying that option when I have so many posts makes me fearful that it’s only going to be a magnet for a host of new problems.

However, Google Search Console (or at least, the URL Inspection Tool) insists that the sitemap ending in “?tsf-sitemap=base” cannot be indexed; and it also claims that indexing cannot even be allowed because “No: ‘noindex’ detected in ‘X-Robots-Tag’ http header” ─ whatever that means.

I guess for now I’ll just stew on this for awhile ─ a few days, or maybe even a few weeks. And maybe I won’t do a thing. After all, how important can it be if ─ with all of the 2,305 urls that my website has ─ only the sitemap is kicking up a problem?

The only problem with the old one was that Google Search Console said that it wasn’t mobile friendly and that the links were too close together. So what?

I don’t use a mobile for accessing the Web; but even with my desktop, I can’t ever remember wanting to visit a website’s sitemap. I doubt many people at all ever do.

So…maybe I should just stick with the old sitemap. At least Google Search Console recognized and indexed it.

Why is nothing ever easy?

Anyway, stay healthy in these nasty times, Sybre!

Hi Garnet,

To get “pretty” permalinks, all you need to do is change an option. WordPress will take care of the rest automatically. If you notice that the outcome is undesirable, you can always flick it back. However, please note that “pretty” permalinks can’t redirect back to “ugly” ones. Again, it is entirely optional ??

I agree with your train of thought: The sitemap is not “mobile-friendly” by Google’s standards, because it’s not meant for visitors. We merely put on a nice coat of paint because we could.

Other than that, I do not see an issue with the sitemap. Via Google Search Console, on the left, you can open the Sitemaps report. From there, you can submit and manage your sitemaps. The report there will also tell you if a sitemap is functioning correctly.

Inspecting the sitemap via the top-input menu will yield incorrect results because Google Search Console will show you information about it as if it were a page, not a sitemap. We frequently get questions about this “noindex” behavior, and it’s a nuisance we hope Google will resolve soon.

So, yes, you’re correct about that the sitemap cannot be indexed. We added the X-Robots-Tag header to it, so it won’t show up in the search results as a page by accident (plus, it is a point of abuse otherwise). However, it can be submitted and used as intended, even with the noindex header present. This same behavior is present with The SEO Framework active for feeds, XMLRPC, and the “pretty permalink” robots.txt output–they can be used as intended, but they cannot be indexed.

I hope this explains that part more clearly! Have a beautiful day ??

You have indeed cleared up a great deal of my misunderstanding and confusion, Sybre.

Basically, then ─ despite Google Search Console’s proclamations ─ the sitemap that SEO Framework created is functioning as intended, and I can merrily ignore the concerns that Google trotted out, for they are not specifically relevant where the sitemap is concerned.

I hope I am correct in speculating further that the reason I get a 404 error when I replace “?tsf-sitemap=base” with “sitemap.xml” is because SEO Framework never did create a sitemap ending with “sitemap.xml”. And that being so, of course no such webpage would display when I use that url.

That sitemap url would only exist if my permalinks had been “pretty” instead of “ugly”.

Since I don’t have an issue with my “ugly” urls, I don’t think that I’ll bother experimenting with WordPress’s “redirect_canonical” option. I happen to be exceptionally adept at causing trouble for myself, so I’m going to leave things as they are.

Bless you ─ and thanks for the rescue! You’ve given me a few things to familiarize myself with that I likely would not otherwise have zeroed in on.

Hi Garnet,

I think you understand it completely now :). I believe there are no more steps for you to take; nevertheless, here are some closing words so that you won’t have loose ends.

We don’t output on /sitemap.xml with “ugly” permalinks for the same reason WordPress doesn’t output /robots.txt (which it otherwise would). That is that “ugly” permalinks can be selected because of structural reasons—either because the server disallows rewrite (unlikely) or because you’re working with solely the folder’s index file. I don’t think either of these applies to you, but it’s something we must consider when developing, regardless.

For example, on your website, WordPress outputs its robots.txt file on this location: /?robots=1. It’s an invalid robots.txt location, but the output is still valid. With sitemaps, you have more freedom on the URL protocol, which means that you’re not solely bound to /sitemap.xml.

When you use “pretty” permalinks, both /robots.txt as /sitemap.xml will become available. You may want to consider using this permalink setting for your next project.

I hope you have a wonderful weekend ahead. Don’t forget to wash your hands regularly! Cheers ??