locked
multiple <user> nodes in the LiveSearchSiteAuth.xml file? RRS feed

  • Question

  • If I have several websites that are treated differently but happen to have a common physical root on the server, can I add multiple <user> nodes in the LiveSearchSiteAuth.xml file to allow each site to be verified?

     

    Monday, September 15, 2008 11:23 AM

Answers

  • Hi,

     

    currently there is no way to verify more than one site per xml file.

     

    Monday, September 22, 2008 4:56 PM

All replies

  • Hi,

     

    I'm waiting on a response from our devs, but in the mean time, could you give me more detail on how you have architected this (multiple sites on single root) so that we can better assist you? Please email me at lswmc@microsoft.com

     

    Brett
    Monday, September 15, 2008 4:58 PM
  •  

    Well maybe you can make a suggestion as to whether this is even required.

    Essentially we’re a web development company so pretty much all of our focus is on new development projects.

    However, we do have a small number (approx 10) unused URL’s which currently just point to a holding page. The idea being that if anyone wants to buy one of those domains then they can otherwise we’ll try to recycle them on future projects when appropriate.

    We do want these domains and their shared landing page picked up in searches if possible but theres no need for sitemaps or anything beyond picking the landing page up in searches.

     

    So what we were looking at doing is just registering these 10 or so pages/URL’s and verifying each as being owned by us.

    Of course as they’re all just sharing the same landing page theres only one xml file in that directory but each verification requires a separate <user> node in the xml file.

    Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:55 AM
  • Hi,

     

    currently there is no way to verify more than one site per xml file.

     

    Monday, September 22, 2008 4:56 PM
  • This is a disappointment. Both Yahoo SiteExplorer and Google Webmasters support multiple domain name registrations for the same site, having realised the rather obvious fact that www.sitename.com and sitename.com usually point to the same place. You may only need to submit a sitemap from one of them, but webmasters are interested in the crawl information for both.  And that is before we get on to www.sitename.org, www.sitename.net, www.sitename.countrycode etc. etc.

    Either you should support multiple user nodes in the XML file, or you should generate the same authorisation code from the same Windows Live account and make it independent of the domain name.




    Monday, September 22, 2008 10:43 PM
  • Hey Paul,

     

    Tell me if I understand you correctly; lets say you have three domains (domaina.com, Domainb.com, and domainc.com)  You want to evaluate the data for each domain even though they point to the same location (i.e. ip addresss/root folder)

     

    If you are redirecting TLDs (DomainB and DomainC to a shared folder and have set up a webmaster account for DomainA the data for B and C is rolled into Domain A's account.   If you want breakout data you would need to to have a seperat root folder.   I can see the value in the breakouts you are asking for and I will open it up as a feature request.

     

    Let me know if this makes sense.

     

    Thanks

     

    Jeremiah Andrick

    Program Manager webmaster center

     

    Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:50 PM
  • I am also disappointed by this answer.

    My scenario, which is a widely used and accepted technique for webmasters, is that I have one codebase that handles requests for different domains, resulting in unique sites.  So my web server accepts requests for ThisSite.com, ThatSite.com and TheOtherSite.com, which all have unique layouts and content but use the same backend codebase.

    Google and Yahoo both support this scenario because they use uniquely-named verification files.

    Unfortunately we cannot use Live.com's webmaster console because of this limitation in your verification process.
    Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:51 PM
  • This is also a problem for me. Rather dissapointed :-(

     

    Friday, November 14, 2008 10:29 AM