SitemapFixer

Indeed a necessary tool to solve the sitemap issue

Nice work, good ui and good work.

I like how SitemapFixer explains technical SEO issues in plain language. The combination of sitemap and indexing checks looks genuinely useful.

Nice work, good ui and good work.

SitemapFixer tackles a genuinely frustrating part of technical SEO: knowing that a page is not indexed, but not understanding why. I like that it brings sitemap validation, robots.txt, canonical, hreflang, and meta checks into one place—and explains the findings in plain language instead of showing another vague SEO score. I’d be curious to see how accurately it prioritizes real indexing blockers over harmless warnings, especially on large websites. If it handles that well, this could save site owners a lot of time before digging through Google Search Console manually.

We built SitemapFixer after seeing the same pattern across our own sites: pages crawled but not indexed, with no clear answer why. It started as an internal checker that reads a sitemap the way Google does and explains in plain language what is blocking a page. The core checkers are free with no signup. Happy to answer anything about how the checks work.

This looks useful. How does the tool handle very large websites with thousands of URLs? Does the free version analyze the entire sitemap or only a portion of it?

SitemapFixer has great potential and offers some useful features, but I encountered a few issues that could be improved. Please contact me so I can share detailed feedback and suggest the changes I'd like to see. Email: [email protected]

`A well-structured product with a clear value proposition and a practical approach to solving real business needs.`

The checkers are free to use without an account; a paid plan adds ongoing monitoring and larger audits.

The plain-language explanations are the right call. Most checkers dump a score and leave you guessing. Curious whether the canonical checker catches the case where a page canonicals to a redirected URL - that chain (canonical to 301 to final) is what quietly kept a batch of our blog pages out of the index for weeks.

Putting sitemap validation, robots.txt, canonical, hreflang, and meta checks in one no-signup flow is practical. The plain-language fix guidance is especially useful because a score alone does not tell a site owner what to change. How does the ongoing monitor distinguish a new indexing blocker from an intentional noindex?

SitemapFixer looks like a practical tool for checking website sitemaps and identifying SEO issues that could affect search engine crawling and indexing. It can save time by helping users spot problems that might otherwise be difficult to find manually. At TeroTAM, it could be useful for regular SEO checks, especially when managing a growing website with multiple pages and blog posts. The simple approach makes it a handy addition to an SEO workflow for keeping the sitemap clean and healthy.

The "crawled but not indexed" mystery is exactly the kind of thing I've wasted whole afternoons on in Search Console, so a tool that actually explains why in plain English is really appealing. Bundling the robots.txt, canonical and hreflang checks in one place is smart too — those are usually the culprits and they're scattered across five different tools otherwise. Will definitely run one of my sites through the free checkers.

works good for my project

"Explains what it found in plain language instead of dumping a score" is the detail that jumped out — most SEO tools give you a 0-100 number that tells you nothing actionable, and you end up guessing which of the ten flagged issues actually matters. The crawled-but-not-indexed diagnosis is the one I'd actually want automated, since that usually means digging through Search Console's coverage report by hand. Does the tool distinguish between "not indexed because of a real technical issue" (bad canonical, noindex tag) versus "not indexed because Google just hasn't prioritized crawling it yet" — those need completely different fixes, and conflating them is where I've seen other checkers give bad advice.

Went through the sitemap + indexing checkers — the crawled-but-not-indexed diagnosis is exactly the kind of thing that usually takes digging through GSC exports by hand, so having it flagged with a plain-language fix list in one pass is genuinely useful. Also liked that the first check runs without an account or credit card; a lot of "free audit" tools gate that behind a signup wall.

works very good for my project