Is there any other way to send new links to search engines besides submitting a sitemap

📅 2026-11-01 👁️ 0

In addition to submitting the sitemap, is there another way to send new links to search engines? The answer is active notification protocols of this kind. Microsoft explains it clearly in the webmaster documents: IndexNow is a set of industry standards for notifying search engines when there are updates or new content on a site. The difference between it and the sitemap is not in the scope of coverage, but in the timing - the list answers 'How many pages does this site have in total,' and the notification answers 'This page has just changed.' Only doing the former, new content will not be discovered until the next round of crawling; only doing the latter, the historical pages and column structure are also missing an overall entry.

What each of the two channels is responsible for

Channel The issue solved Trigger method Scope of coverage Intra-site acceptance
Site map Full page collection and level Regular generation, passive reading Station-wide pages Automatically Generate Sitemap
Push manually New and changed timeliness Submit when the action is published Single or a small number of addresses Link push management, Baidu push and Bing
Crawling discovery Natural guidance of internal links Depends on internal link structure Not fixed Anchor text and navigation settings

Link push management is responsible for delivering content to search engines to accelerate indexing. In-house, it supports Baidu's active push and Bing two channels; The value of protocols like IndexNow lies in cross-engine sharing of a single notification, where the same batch of addresses can cover multiple participants.

The new site needs to have the order in place

The most common mistake for newly launched sites is the sequence, not the quantity. The recommended action sequence is: first confirm the crawling permission and the accessibility of the site, then submit a complete sitemap so that the search engine can obtain the full set of pages, then follow up with the publishing action and active push, and finally check the checklist and the actual number of pages weekly to ensure consistency. The reason for this sequence is simple - if the permission is not matched, no matter how fast the submission is, it will not be crawled; if the checklist is missing, the notification can only cover a few pages.

A site that has been operating for some time will focus on incremental changes: it needs to be notified after the article revision, channel migration, and address convergence. It also involves events such as the change of old addresses when 301 redirection is involved.

Common mistakes

The first is to treat the sitemap as an alternative to the submission action. The manifest file is read by the other party according to the plan, does not represent 'just updated'. The second is to only place new links on the homepage, hoping for natural discovery, the discovery speed of deep pages will be significantly slower than that of list pages. The third is not to review after pushing: it should be regularly compared with the amount of submission and inclusion, and when the gap continues to expand, first check the content quality and page accessibility instead of increasing the frequency of pushing.

Common questions

Is it certain that it will be included after pushing?Not necessarily. The push solves the speed of discovery, and the inclusion also depends on whether the page content and structure are worth archiving.

How often should it be pushed?Push in accordance with the release rhythm, only push when there is new content or content changes, which is more in line with the event semantics than scheduled batch pushing.

Should the site map be retained?It should be retained, as it covers historical pages and columns, and the notification channel cannot replace the complete list.

Will the two channels conflict?No. The list provides the full amount, and the notification provides the incremental amount, complementing each other. Submitting the same address repeatedly will not cause any content issues.

Related articles

About 10% of the sites that use llms.txt, what problem does this file solve?

A third-party study covering nearly 300,000 domains shows that sites with llms.txt only account for about 10.13%, and it was not found that it can improve the AI citation effect. This does not negate its use: the overview file solves the problem of the reading path of the model after entering the site, allowing the model not to traverse the entire site itself, it does not replace the crawling license, nor does it guarantee that it will be cited.

2026-11-01

Which rule does the AI crawler read first when entering a site, and how do robots.txt and llms.txt divide labor?

When an AI crawler enters a site, it first reads the crawling permit, then the overview file: robots.txt determines which agents can crawl and which directories cannot be entered; llms.txt determines the order in which the model understands the site content after entering. Both are not mutually exclusive; one manages access permissions, and the other manages the reading path. They need to be configured separately within the site, and each should be verified once after changes.

2026-11-01

More than half of the page titles will be rewritten by search engines, what is the meaning of writing titles carefully?

There is a study that shows that search engines have rewritten 61% of page titles, indicating that the displayed title is generated by the search side, and the website controls the input quality rather than the final presentation. It is still meaningful to write a title carefully: a title that is clear in theme, appropriate in length, and with a standardized brand suffix is the original material for the rewriting algorithm, and the probability of being replaced is higher if it is written ambiguously. AI-generated TDK is suitable for drafting, and manual review should be retained before going online, in coordination with the keyword library to unify the tone.

2026-11-01

How to judge the source of free circulation cracked themes that inject backdoors into installation packages

Crack themes and plugins by writing backdoors into the installation package, once the site is installed, it will be contaminated. In historical cases, the CryptoPHP backdoor in 2014 affected more than 23,000 sites. To judge the source, we need to look at three points: whether the authorization chain can be traced back to the author, whether there are non-source code obfuscated files in the installation package, and whether there are unknown outgoing requests after going online. Corporate websites should manage content defense lines for text but not for third-party code, and theme files still need external verification.

2026-11-01

The price difference for the beginner package of hosting website starts from a few dollars a month to twenty or more dollars, what do you get for the price difference?

The entry-level pricing for mainstream hosting and website building platforms is roughly between $4 to $25 per month, the price difference mainly involves three aspects: whether the platform ads are removed, whether e-commerce and form components are unlocked, and what the collaboration seats and traffic limits are. Self-hosted content management systems have a different billing structure, where the host and runtime environment are in your own hands, and the functionality is provided by the system itself, with memory usage and deployment methods directly affecting resource costs.

2026-11-01

In the first year's bill for a self-built CMS, besides the host, what else should be considered?

The fixed items for the first year of building a site are usually four types: hosting, domain name, certificate, and backup. In the public口径 of third parties, shared hosting is 3 to 15 US dollars per month, and a regular .com domain name is 12 to 20 US dollars per year; the remaining certificates and backups are more about operational time costs. The resource usage and deployment method on the system side will change the choice of hosting tiers, and programs with low memory usage and high single-machine carrying capacity can use smaller instances.

2026-11-01

The Drupal core remote code execution patch was released on the same day, why should an upgrade window be reserved?

The Drupal official has classified SA-CORE-2026-014 as a Critical level remote code execution, with the fixed versions 10.6.19, 11.3.19, 11.4.10 released on the same day as the announcement. The public patch means that the attack surface is also public, and reserving an upgrade window is not about delaying, but about placing backups, drills, gray release, and reviews before scanning.

2026-11-01

Why does the official say that the only way is to upgrade for the two high-risk remote code execution vulnerabilities in PHP?

The PHP official released four security versions 8.5.12, 8.4.27, 8.3.36, 8.2.35 on October 21, 2026, fixing two vulnerabilities that could cause unauthorized remote code execution, with a CVSS v4.0 score of 9.2, and explicitly stating that "there are no complete mitigation measures, upgrading is the only safe choice". This article explains why configuration layer avoidance does not stand and what will be brought by the expiration of the runtime environment lifecycle.

2026-11-01