A sitemap cannot be fetched or read

In the reportSitemap fetch or parse error

sitemap_fetch_error · Issue

Short answer

This appears when a sitemap named in your robots.txt, or listed in a sitemap index, answered with an HTTP error such as 404, 403 or 503, or came back in a form that cannot be read as a sitemap. Our audit could not read that list of your pages; search engines may still know them from earlier fetches or links. Restore the file, or remove the declaration if the sitemap no longer exists.

Severity: Medium. Fix it in your next round of site changes. It is High when the failing sitemap is named in robots.txt, or when the crawl found more than 500 addresses on the site.

Why it matters

A sitemap tells search engines which pages you consider important, and Google reads it to crawl your site more efficiently. A declared sitemap that fails removes that signal, although search engines can still find pages by following links.

What to do

  1. Look at the finding: it names every failing sitemap and, for up to ten of them, shows how it was declared and the answer it gave, with a count of the rest.
  2. Open that address in a browser. If it is gone, recreate it in your website editor or SEO plugin, or remove the Sitemap: line or the index entry that still names it.
  3. If it loads but is not a sitemap, such as a web page served at that address, make the address return the sitemap file itself.

What we read

We read the Sitemap: lines in your robots.txt and follow them, then any sitemap indexes they list, up to three levels deep and 100 files per audit; we try common addresses such as /sitemap.xml only when the declared ones give no usable page. We read XML sitemaps, sitemap indexes, RSS, Atom and plain-text lists, and unpack gzip files.

A declared sitemap is reported when its final answer is an HTTP error from 400 to 599, or when it answers 200 with content that is not a readable sitemap. After a dropped connection, a 429 or a server error we ask once more, and that second answer decides. A sitemap found only at a guessed address is not reported, and a timeout, DNS or TLS failure or a redirect loop is noted as not checked rather than reported.

Example & evidence

Illustrative example — one declared sitemap, not a live audit.

https://bakery.example/robots.txt declares:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /cart/
Sitemap: https://bakery.example/sitemap-products.xml
GET https://bakery.example/sitemap-products.xml
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found

The declared sitemap answers 404, so the site is reported, and it is High because robots.txt names the file. The finding shows the sitemap's address, where it was declared and its status.

A possible correction: publish the file again so that it answers 200 OK with a valid sitemap, or delete the Sitemap: line if the products sitemap is gone for good.

Confirm & check again

Check for yourself: open each address named on a Sitemap: line in your robots.txt; Search Console's Sitemaps report also shows fetch and parse errors for the sitemaps you submitted.

Check again: Full audit — run a new audit of the site; it reads robots.txt and every sitemap again. The finding is confirmed fixed only when every sitemap in the audit answers 200, can be read, lists at least one address and is within the size limit, and none was left unread because of a network failure or the file and depth limits.

Limits & sources

We request sitemaps with our own user agent, so a firewall that turns away unknown bots can cause this finding although Google fetches the file. Sitemaps known only to Search Console are not seen, and the check does not tell whether search engines stopped crawling your pages.

Confidence: High because the status and the reading error are recorded for each file.

Sources

  • Google, Build and submit a sitemap — lists the sitemap formats Google reads and how to declare a sitemap in robots.txt. Checked 25 September 2026.
  • Google, Learn about sitemaps — says a sitemap tells search engines which pages you consider important and helps them crawl the site more efficiently. Checked 25 September 2026.

Editorial review: 29 September 2026