Video SiteMap Updating

[TheCraig]

Hi all!

We noticed some issues with our sitemap and so we went through and optimized it to re-submit it.  At the same time, it seemed prudent to optimize our video sitemap, however we probably should have thought through that more as  we are seeing the numbers of indexed videos going down.

Why and what we changed:

We recently moved from flash/flv video to Html5 videos with webm and mp4.  So it seemed prudent to change our sitemap which was using the old flv videos.

At the same time updating our videos with more SEO friendly titles seemed prudent.

So far our indexed videos from the video sitemap have gone from 70,000 to 28,000, so:

A.  How much does a video sitemap depend on the URL of the web page versus the title and the video itself?

I am assuming that Google sees a new file extension and title and assumes that it is a completely new video and that might be why they are de-indexing the old ones?

I suppose we could go back and put the old sitemap to the old flv videos back up, but maybe we should just tough out the change and wait for the new videos to be indexed.

Thanks!!

Craig

[TakeshiYoung]

Google looks at the URLs in sitemaps, not the titles, so if you changed the URL then Google will see it as a new video (multiple videos can have the same title, but URLs are unique to each piece of content).

[PhilNottingham]

Hey Craig,

In short - it sounds like you're doing everything right and I'd be inclined to question the indexation stats  first rather than the method you've implemented.

Q1) Neither are a major factor in the video getting indexed. Indexation on that front is essentially binary - it's either indexed, or Google doesn't accept some of the inputted tags and then won't provide a rich snippet

Re - deindexing old ones and indexing new ones, i think that's exactly what's happening. If you refresh all the content and the sitemaps, it will take a while for Google to crawl through and reindex everything properly.

I'd advise just sticking with it for now and waiting a few weeks to see if you can get everything indexed as it should be. If you've got some of the new videos indexed - then it means your implementation is correct and you'll probably just need to be patient given the amount of content you've got.

Additionally, I wouldn't trust the Google webmaster tools data on indexation either - it's notoriously unreliable and may be undereporting the amount of videos you actually have in the search results.

Cheers,

Phil.

[TheCraig]

Hmm.  Ever heard of putting in 2 different URLs for the same video?  i.e.

<video:content_loc>House_Cat_Mauling_Postal_Worker.flvvideo:content_loc>

<video:content_loc>House_Cat_Mauling_Postal_Worker.mp4video:content_loc>

Thanks for the answer!

Craig

[TheCraig]

Thanks Phil!

Yeah, I am definitely learning how un-reliable WMT is and trusting it less and less...

Thanks for the input.  Very much appreciated!

Craig

[PhilNottingham]

I've tried that before and only had it not work - I think it just confuses the algorithm. No real advantage in referencing both the .mp4 and .flv of the same file, as Google aren't preferential regarding the encapsulated format.

[TheCraig]

Last question Phil.  While webmaster tools is saying what it is saying, I am definitely seeing our old video records disappearing from Google. so this drop from 70,000 to 28,000 doesn't just seem to be a webmaster tools thing, but does appear to be showing itself in Google as well.

A search that was showing several video results a week ago, now shows none.

Should I be concerned or will the new ones come back in their place you think?

Is it just a waiting game at this point?  I know that's the case with regular sitemaps, but those reference the same pages.  I am a little concerned since Google is seeing these as all new videos.  So, if Google sees them as all new and sends them to the back of the line, I think I would rather have the other flv ones back.

Thanks!

C

[PhilNottingham]

Hey Craig,

Unfortunately it's really difficult for me to offer you a decent answer for this blind (without trawling through the site and sitemaps) - but I expect that it's just a waiting game, yes.

If you've updated all your video embeds and the sitemaps to match that - then essentially Google need to recrawl and verify all your pages and videos. This will take time, especially for the number you're talking about - as, yes, Google will see these as new videos (they technically are).

There isn't a way to go back on this either, as if you've refreshed all your content and sitemaps - Going backwards Google will still need to recrawl everything.

I don't know how long you've been waiting - but I'd expect it to be a couple of months before everything is as it was, and that's if your site is SEOmoz kinda strengh - so DA90 odd..

Basically - I'd recommend just tracking this week by week and seeing if things improve. Make sure all the Sitemap entries are referenced via robots.txt as well as WMT and then hold tight. If you're still not having all the videos indexed after a couple of months, then you might need to drill down a bit deeper.

Cheers,

Phil.

[TheCraig]

Roger that Phil,

I figured as much, but didn't realize it could take that long.  Since updating our sitemaps, it says that they have already crawled and indexed about 200,000 regular pages.

Hopefully the videos will kick in as well.

Thanks!

Craig

[dimicos]

Hi Phil,

Just saw your answers, and they grabbed my attention. My problem is similar to Craig's.

In our case, we have the video pages indexed, but not the videos itself. We added both page URL (<loc>) and video content location (video:content_loc) in the video sitemap.

Is there a chance of canibalization or prioritization, since only the content loc URL has been indexed by Google, instead the full page URL?

Note: we added the schema.org properties as well (Embed URL).

Thanks</video:content_loc></loc>

[PhilNottingham]

Ilcho,

It sounds like you probably have a technical issue which is preventing your content from being indexed. I'm afraid I can't really offer more advice on this point, other to suggest paying a specialist to take a look into your specific situation.

Thanks,

Phil.