Re: Are Site Maps still a "best practice"?

Er, while I think sitemaps may be necessary for bots to crawl, don't you think you've failed the user if they need to rely on a sitemap to get the lay of the land and navigate their way through the site?

-Matty

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Hanhwe Kim wrote:

> Carrie and Asta make excellent points. I remember a running into some
> sites where it was exceedingly frustrating to navigate for various
> reasons that I would have abandoned if it were not for the site map.
> It doesn't happen that often but when you need the site map, it is
> indeed the last resort.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just checked our usage reports and it looks like a mere 0.05% of the
>> page requests by non-bots are for the site map.  Probably far fewer than
>> 7% of our visitors, then.
>> 
>> However, I will keep the site map for two reasons:  One, the 0.05% of
>> users, and Two, the bots.  There are numerous pages on our other public
>> site that Googlebot et al. wouldn't be able to find and index, were it not
>> for the site map.  The site map provides the only path in via links.  (The
>> other site's content isn't available to human users without entering a
>> search term -- which I think is a huge usability failure, but then Google
>> itself has the same issue.)
>> 
>> Genny Engel
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I believe site maps should still be used. They should definitely not be
>>> the
>>> only way people navigate your site, but there is still a small percentage
>>> of
>>> people who may go to this when for one reason or another, they cant find
>>> what they are looking for on your site. To me, its like adding a "last
>>> resort" for customers to stop them from abandoning your site from a
>>> frustration that no one anticipated.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Carrie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Zoey Kroll <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'm wondering if I should start including site maps in my navigation
>>>> recommendations, as a best practice. I had been under the impression
>>>> that a well-designed site shouldn't need a site map. A client is now
>>>> asking whether to include it or not. From a quick search, I couldn't
>>>> find any usability studies from 2009 or 2010 on the subject. Most
>>>> sites recommended site maps along the 'can't hurt' motto -- though
>>>> these do add one more item on the 'to create and maintain' list.
>>>> 
>>>> Nielson's '08 study indicates that 7% of people use it, and that it's
>>>> still a useful feature that should be included. http://www.useit.com/
>>>> alertbox/sitemaps.html
>>>> Jared Spool believes it is often a "design cop-out" that addresses
>>>> symptoms, but not the root of the issue. Does anyone have more
>>>> current research, or thoughts on this?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Zoey
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
_______________________________________________
This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions