Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    New Coder
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Cool public_html folder and sitemap

    My website is - Worldwide Sri Lanka Travels for Visitors. Instead of Control Panel it has a Plesk Panel. This does not have public_html folder. Instead the alternative folder is called httpdocs My sitemap.xml and index file etc are in this root folder. Google Analytics will search for the public_html folder. When I did a SEO ANALYSIS the result says no SITEMAP available.How to solve this problem please. Kindly assist me. Wilfred

  2. #2
    Administrator VIPStephan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Halle (Saale), Germany
    Thanked 1,376 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Where does it specify that Google Analytics will search for a public_html directory? Usually Google won’t care where your website is stored, it should just use the web root directory. But if it actually matters there should be some kind of setting in the Google Analytics console where you can specify the server path.

  3. #3
    Senior Coder deathshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Keene, NH
    Thanked 536 Times in 522 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by neil12sc View Post
    Google Analytics will search for the public_html folder.
    No, it won't. The local folder has not one thing to do with what anything ONLINE sees. All Google, or Baidu, or Yandex, or any user gets to see is the URI. Where the root of the URI corresponds to on the local filesystem is not, NOR SHOULD IT BE EXPOSED.

    Doesn't matter if it's "/usr/username/public_html" or "/var/www/sitename/web" or "C:\XAMPP\htdocs"... NONE of that should be visible to the web facing side of things.

    Now that said, what "SEO Analysis" are you using? Painfully vague since that could be any of a hundred different things. Does sound like you're talking about some sort of automated trash that's more likely scam than fact though, given that sitemaps are a pointless placebo if your site is constructed properly.

    As a rule of thumb if a tool says anything about needing a sitemap, I assume it's at best outdated trash, and at worst incompetent scam artist idiocy.

    That said your sitemap.xml is right there:

    It's also broken nonsensical gibberish. My advice, delete that and just make sure all the pages on your site are actually properly crosslinked. If you "need" that sitemap nonsense, there's something horrifically wrong.

    Like... well, let me give you an ACTUAL analysis of this in terms of quality, accessibility, and SEO.

    Where you have those "horrifically wrong" problems such as blindly dumping anchor tags into DIV with nothing remotely resembling proper semantics or logical document structure... or using BUTTON tags to pull goofy JavaScript tricks for things that HTML and CSS should be doing WITHOUT the scripting assist. Using attributes such as width and height on elements like DIV that have NEVER had such attributes in ANY version of HTML. Failing to have a properly formed FORM missing half the tags that are required for accessibility. Blindly dumping static style into the markup completely missing caching opportunities. Putting STRONG tags into headings when not grammatically/structurally applying "more emphasis". Blocking script in the HEAD, static scripting in the BODY, CDATA (in the TITLE tag) preceding the charset META, overstuffed keywords META guaranteed to be ignored by search or even get you pimp-slapped on the rankings, nonsensical robots META (there's no such thing as index or follow, you want it indexed and followed don't include the META!), improper type declaration on a favicon (don't say type="" for link on stylesheets or favicons), attributes like TARGET that have no business in any HTML written after 1997...

    Or even just plain having been suckered by the nube predator SCAM that is W3Schools and their idiotic laundry list of how NOT to build a website that is W3.css! Many of us call them W3Fools for a reason... and you've been fooled. Hardly a shock it looks like you may have been choosing your tags based on what you want things to look like, which for all intents and purposes is NOT what HTML is even for!

    If you're worried about on-page SEO, some xml sitemap nonsense is the LEAST of your concerns. Matt Cutts told us years ago "write for the user, not the search engine" and in that way your site is a broken inaccessible mess that needs to be tossed and started over from scratch. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the TRUTH of it. You've got 13.5k of markup doing around 9k's job, riddled with a mix of outdated and outright broken techniques that mean the site is a complete failure to meet accessibility norms, much less even use HTML properly.

    ... and if your page is neither accessible nor using HTML properly, it's not gonna rank well in search.

    Sitemaps are the LEAST of your problems.
    “There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.” – C.A.R. Hoare, The 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts