Official statement
Other statements from this video 4 ▾
- □ Pourquoi plusieurs balises canonical vers des URLs différentes cassent-elles votre indexation ?
- □ Faut-il supprimer les dates dans vos URLs pour mieux ranker ?
- □ Les CDN pour images pénalisent-ils vraiment votre référencement Google ?
- □ Un seul domaine pour le SEO international : suffisant ou risqué ?
John Mueller confirms that the Google Webmasters verification file has no place in the XML sitemap. This file only serves to prove site ownership in Search Console and does not play any role in the indexing process. Essentially, including it in your sitemap is pointless and may even unnecessarily consume your crawl budget on large sites.
What you need to understand
What is the real role of the Google verification file?<\/h3>
The verification file (usually googleXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.html<\/strong>) has just one function: to prove that you actually control the domain or subdomain for which you are requesting access to Search Console. Google checks once that this file is present in the root of your site, and that’s it.<\/p> Once the ownership is validated, this file remains in place out of precaution — if you delete it, you lose access to Search Console. But it serves absolutely no purpose<\/strong> for crawling, indexing, or ranking your pages. It is just an authentication token, not an SEO signal.<\/p> Several reasons explain this confusion. First, a misunderstanding of the role of the sitemap: some think it should list all HTML files<\/strong> of the site, including technical files. Classic mistake.<\/p> Secondly, some basic automated sitemap generators<\/strong> may scan the root directory and include this file indiscriminately. As a result, thousands of sites carry this file in their sitemap without a valid reason. It doesn't break anything, but it is unnecessary — and on a large site with a tight crawl budget, every URL counts.<\/p> Honestly? Nothing dramatic. Google will crawl this URL, see that it returns a 200 code with either empty content or a simple token, and move on. The file will never be indexed<\/strong> (it has no useful content), so it won’t appear in search results.<\/p> The real issue is the clutter. On a site with 50,000 pages and an already dense sitemap, adding unnecessary URLs — verification files, tracking parameters, test pages — dilutes the priority given to the true strategic pages. Google crawls with a finite budget: it’s best to focus on what matters.<\/p>Why do some webmasters add it to the sitemap?<\/h3>
What happens if we include it in the sitemap anyway?<\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with what we observe on the field?<\/h3>
Absolutely. I’ve audited hundreds of sitemaps over the years, and never has the inclusion or exclusion of the verification file had any measurable impact on SEO performance. No correlation<\/strong> exists between its presence in the sitemap and the indexing rate, crawling frequency, or positioning.<\/p> What’s more interesting is that this confusion reveals a broader issue: many sites generate their sitemaps without strategic thinking<\/strong>. They dump everything that exists in HTML into it, without questioning whether each URL deserves priority crawling. The verification file is just a symptom — often, you’ll also find legal pages, terms of service, login pages, or even session parameters in there.<\/p> No. There is no legitimate case<\/strong> where including the verification file in the sitemap provides a benefit. Even on a very small site of 10 pages, it remains unnecessary — Google will crawl this file anyway if it needs it for initial verification.<\/p> However, watch out for a particular case: some CMS or SEO plugins automatically generate the sitemap and include all .html files present in the root<\/strong>. If this applies to you, you need to either manually set up an exclusion or correct the generation logic. Never let a tool decide for you what goes into the sitemap.<\/p> Mueller’s statement is clear and doesn't really require nuance. What’s missing is the practical context<\/strong>: how many webmasters still make this mistake? Hard to quantify, but based on my audits, I would say about 15-20% of audited sites have this file in their sitemap — often without the SEO manager even knowing.<\/p> Another point: Mueller doesn’t specify that this principle also applies to other verification methods<\/strong>. If you use meta tag verification or Google Tag Manager, you won't even have this HTML file — so the problem doesn’t arise. But if you've opted for file verification, keep it in the root, and remove it from the sitemap<\/strong>.<\/p>Are there cases where this rule does not apply?<\/h3>
What nuances should we add to this statement?<\/h3>
Practical impact and recommendations
What should you actually do on your site?<\/h3>
First step: open your main XML sitemap (or sitemap index) and look for any URL containing "google"<\/strong> or ending with a random token like If your sitemap is generated automatically — by WordPress, Shopify, PrestaShop, or a third-party tool — check the generation settings. Look for an option like "Exclude system files"<\/strong> or "Filter out non-strategic URLs". If no such option exists, you may need to edit the file manually or add an exclusion rule in your generation script.<\/p> The Google verification file is just the tip of the iceberg. Many sitemaps also contain robots.txt files<\/strong>, custom 404 pages, 301 redirects, URLs with tracking parameters (utm_source, etc.), or even CSS and JS files. All of this clutters the sitemap and diverts the crawl budget.<\/p> Another frequent mistake: orphan pages<\/strong> included in the sitemap but not linked from the internal linking structure. This creates inconsistency — Google wonders why you are highlighting in the sitemap pages that you consider unworthy of an internal link. The result: degraded quality signal. Regularly clean up your sitemap by cross-referencing with your server logs and crawl data.<\/p> Download your XML sitemap and review it line by line — or write a small script to extract all URLs. Compare this list with your strategic pages<\/strong>: those that generate organic traffic, conversions, or target your priority keywords. If 30% of your sitemap consists of useless pages, you have a problem.<\/p> Also use Search Console reports, the "Coverage"<\/strong> section (or "Pages" in the new interface). Check how many URLs from the sitemap are actually indexed. If you have 10,000 URLs in the sitemap but only 3,000 indexed, there’s either a quality content issue or a structural problem — and probably both. A good sitemap should have an indexing rate > 80%<\/strong>.<\/p>google1234567890abcdef.html<\/code>. If you find it, remove it. It’s that simple.<\/p>What other common mistakes can be found in sitemaps?<\/h3>
How to check if your sitemap is clean and effective?<\/h3>
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Que se passe-t-il si je supprime complètement le fichier de vérification Google de mon serveur ?
Le fichier de vérification doit-il être accessible en HTTPS ou HTTP suffit ?
Peut-on mettre le fichier de vérification dans un sous-répertoire au lieu de la racine ?
Y a-t-il un risque SEO à avoir plusieurs fichiers de vérification (Google, Bing, Yandex) dans le répertoire racine ?
Si mon sitemap contient déjà le fichier de vérification depuis des années, dois-je le retirer maintenant ?
🎥 From the same video 4
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 31/03/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.