The sitemap is either empty, bloated with duplicates 3–4 times over, or points to only one of two language versions. We checked dozens of Ukrainian online stores and collected the typical defects with concrete numbers — from a 0-byte file to 33% of URLs leading to the wrong product.
A sitemap is a file that tells a search engine: here is the full list of pages worth crawling. People rarely open it by hand, so its defects live on for years without anyone noticing: the site works, the pages open, everything seems fine.
We have checked the sitemaps of dozens of Ukrainian online stores — both our own client projects and third-party sites in market samples. Below are the typical breakages, with real numbers.
The most common breakage. A product enters the sitemap as many times as the number of categories it sits in — and each time under a different URL.
Concrete measurements from different sites:
Why it hurts: crawl budget is not unlimited. The search engine spends it re-crawling the same page under different URLs instead of reaching the ones it has not seen yet. On a catalog of several thousand items, that is the difference between “new products in the index within days” and “within weeks.”
On top of that, duplication makes a page compete with itself: five URLs with identical content split signals among themselves instead of accumulating them on one.
A separate and even more insidious case: /sitemap.xml returns a 200 code — meaning “all good” — but the response body is zero bytes.
We saw this on several stores in a row: the file exists, the server responds successfully, and there is nothing inside. Automated checks pass such a site — they look at the response code. The search engine receives an empty list and crawls the site only through internal links.
A variation of the same problem: robots.txt contains the line Sitemap: https://site.com.ua/sitemap.xml, but the file itself returns 404. We came across this on four sites in different niches — in three cases the line was inherited from the engine's default template and never checked.
And one more: the Sitemap line in robots.txt is commented out as a placeholder like # Sitemap: https://site.com/sitemap.xml — that is, it was in the template, but nobody uncommented it or put in the real URL.
A bilingual site whose sitemap contains URLs in only one of the languages. For the search engine the second language version effectively does not exist — it has to be found by chance, through internal links.
Examples from the measurements:
<html lang="uk"> and hreflang for UkrainianTellingly, the direction of the “loss” varies: sometimes the Ukrainian version disappears, sometimes the Russian one. This means the cause is not language policy but how the sitemap generator is configured — and that nobody checked the result after configuring it.
The costliest case we have come across. On a lingerie store, in a sample of 150 random product URLs from the sitemap, 50 (33%) returned a 301 redirect — and all 50 led to a different item: a different size or a different color (70B instead of 70A, L instead of XL, white instead of black).
At the scale of that catalog, that is about 37 thousand URLs through which a shopper coming from search lands on a product other than the one they were looking for. For a store where size is the main reason for returns, this is not a technical trifle.
Sometimes a working sitemap exists but is not where crawlers and audit tools look first. We saw a site where /sitemap.xml returned an empty body, /sitemap_index.xml returned the line “SEO XML Sitemap Generator PRO is disabled”, and the real sitemap sat at a non-standard URL and was saved only by being listed in robots.txt.
The reverse case happens too: the sitemap is complete and correct, but there is no Sitemap directive in robots.txt — and the search engine has to guess on its own that the sitemap exists.
In the samples measured on 7–8 August 2026, the following had no usable sitemap: 6 of 39 sites in the technical sample, 2 of 5 in power tools, 2 of 7 in optics, 1 of 6 in stationery, 1 of 4 in jewelry. In two more cases the sitemap pointed to a different domain — a leftover from a migration that nobody cleaned up.
https://your-site.com.ua/sitemap.xml in a browser. If it is empty or returns 404, you have already found the first problem.robots.txt: is there a Sitemap: line, and does it point to a working URL?curl -s https://your-site.com.ua/sitemap.xml | grep -o '<loc>[^<]*' | sed 's/<loc>//' | sort | tee /tmp/all.txt | uniq | wc -l && wc -l < /tmp/all.txt
The two numbers should match. If the second one is two or three times larger, you have duplication.
grep -c '/ua/' /tmp/all.txt and the same for the other language branch.The figures for specific sites are measurements taken on a specific date, and some of them concern projects that may have changed since then. We deliberately do not give names: the goal is to show typical breakages and a way to find them, not to stage a public teardown of other people's sites or our own client sites.
The market samples are small (4–8 sites per niche), so the shares by niche describe these particular sites on the date of the check, not the market as a whole.
Your opinion helps us create better content
Help others learn about it - share the article on social networks
Thank you for helping us grow
Writes about what he builds himself: online stores on OpenCart, applications on Next.js, integrations and site speed. The articles carry measurements and checks a reader can repeat on their own project, not general advice. Commercial development since 2015.
Answers to common questions on the topic
Count the total number of <loc> entries and the number of unique URLs. If the first is two or three times the second, you have duplication: a product enters the sitemap once per category it belongs to. In our measurements we saw ratios such as 25,537 entries to 6,857 unique URLs.
Yes, and an insidious one: automated checks pass such a site because they look at the response code. The search engine receives an empty list and crawls the site only through internal links. Check the file's contents, not its status code.
Nobody guarantees a direct ranking drop. What is clearly visible is wasted crawl budget: the engine re-crawls one page under different URLs instead of new pages. On a large catalogue that delays new products entering the index.
Check the sitemap generator's settings: in most engines language branches are added separately. This is the most common reason a second language version stays out of the index for years despite correctly declared hreflang.
Take 20 random URLs from the sitemap and check their response codes — all should return 200. In one of our measurements, 33% of sampled URLs returned a 301, and every one of them led to a different size or colour of the product.
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive useful tips, insights and news about web development, marketing and business.
Technical SEOOn 17 September 2026 we recounted in the web archive what losing our own store along with its domain looked like from the outside: 2,378 captures of the home page in March 2022, the first 301 on the first of April, the last capture of our content on 18 May. We show what the archive restores and what it does not.
Technical SEOFrom 2 August to 3 September 2026, our IndexNow script submitted six sitemap file URLs to Bing instead of pages, and every submission came back “successful”. We break down why the 200 code proved nothing and how to check in 15 minutes what exactly your module submits.
Site performanceOn 17.08.2026 an audit showed a CLS of 0.2283 on our website’s desktop homepage. The cause turned out to be the font: the ch unit in a paragraph and a skewed decorative band. We break down which tips measurably did not help, what got us to 0.0056 and how to check your own site.
