I have a Q/A site provided in 2 languages: English or German. On the site there's overview pages for tags used for questions. Now, depending on the language set for the site, such overview page URL will look like this:
mysite.com/tag/mathematics (English)
or this:
mysite.com/tag/mathematik (German)
Also, the first one will present questions asked in English, the second - in German.
My question is: is this kind of structure considered the same/duplicated content by Google? To wrap this up:
the overview pages look the same
UI is displayed in English or German
the "real" content (questions) is different for each language
Do I need to use rel="canonical" in <head> in this case to tell Google which URL I prefer to be indexed?
Content in different languages is not considered duplicate.
See here Does translated content cause a duplicate content issue?
and this link should be helpful too : https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/182192?hl=en
Related
I am very new to schemas (this is my first time) and I am a little confused on this info. I was reading into schemas for breadcrumbs and I came across 2 different methods:
Google way: From what I read from here, Google shows example of adding Microdata using http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb
Schema.org example: The example in Schema.org shows a very different approach. Something like this:
<div itemprop="breadcrumb">
Books >
Literature & Fiction >
Classics
</div>
My questions are:
(1) Is it better for me to use the Schema.org method instead of Data-Vocabulary.org in 2014? When I read the discussions in this topic here where some has said that Data-Vocabulary.org is outdated and Schema.org is the latest method. Is this a valid statement for today? I have still seen a lot of websites using Data-Vocabulary.org similar to Google's example.
(2) The Schema.org method is too simple and unlike Google's Data-vocabulary.org example that adds itemprop="url" for URLs, itemprop="title" for titles, etc. individually. But the Schema.org method just wraps the whole breadcrumbs and doesn't declare individual URLs and titles. So would Google's search engine understand the URLs and titles if I used the Schema.org method? Or is Google's Data-Vocabulary.org method better for Google's search engine results?
(3) Lastly, with the breadcrumb separator does it only show the separator used in the HTML markup? For instance, I have breadcrumb separator added via CSS and it's not in the HTML markup. So in this case, if the breadcrumbs are shown in search results, would it automatically add the > separator or will it show exactly the way I've shown in my HTML?
Schema.org and Data-Vocabulary.org are vocabularies. If you want, you could use both of them for the same content (the Microdata syntax makes this hard/impossible, but it’s easy with the RDFa syntax).
If you are interested in a specific consumer for your markup, it makes sense to check their documentation to see what exactly they support (of course you can’t be sure if their documentation is correct and complete).
In case of Google Search and their Rich Snippets, the documentation would be: Rich snippets - Breadcrumbs (currently "experimental"). On this page, they only give examples using the Data-Vocabulary.org.
(Note: Stack Overflow is the wrong place for discussing actual support and behaviour of third-party services like Google Search. On our sister site Webmasters such questions might be on-topic.)
According to google's Structured Data Testing Tool, there are no errors in my review schema code, but the stars still are not displaying in the preview. Does anyone have any idea why? I thought maybe it was a nesting issue, but I tried to organize the data in all kinds of arrangements and to no avail. Any thoughts would be very appreciated!
Thanks in advance!
Here's the page I'm referring to:
http://www.junkluggers.com/locations/westchester-ny/white-plains-ny-junk-removal-and-furniture-pickup/
(The review I'm working on is the one at the bottom of the page, not the testimonial on the right sidebar.)
According to Google:
" If you've added structured data for rich snippets, but they are not appearing in search results, the problem can be caused by two types of issues:
Technical issues with the structured data markup or with the Google’s ability to crawl, index, and utilize the structured data.
Quality issues, that is, structured data that is technically correct, but does not adhere to Google’s quality guidelines."
Full answer here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1093493?hl=en
Along with RustyFluff's comment, I do notice a few technical errors in your markup, Catherine. In a nutshell, you haven't defined who or what is being reviewed, and you should be using the reviewBody property instead of description. You also should remove the city from within the author's name markup. And something else that I should point out is that you should remove the authorship markup from the page, as it's not appropriate for an authorship tag according to Google's guidelines. Also, the publisher tag only needs to go on your homepage, and it should link to your Google+ business page, not to a personal profile.
Keep in mind, though, that even if your markup is technically perfect, there are no guarantees that Google will display your rich snippets. They determine that based on, among other things, various quality signals.
I'm having trouble getting the Webmaster Tools rich snippet testing tool to properly return markup for schema.org's WebPageElement types.
http://schema.org/WebPageElement
Does anyone have a site that hosts this markup?
I'm looking for solutions for a website that has undesirable snippets returned on Google search. The website is an interactive library of slide presentations, with an advanced search function.
Many different search pages on this site are being dropped from the Google index every week. The snippet returned on these pages includes the navigation menu. There is no h1 tag and the first line of the navigation menu is in bold, so Google is identifying the menu as the main content of the page and returning this info in the search results.
I need Google to put the actual page content in the search results, to increase click through rate and resolve a probable duplicate content issue.
I thought it would be good to put an h1 tag on the site, and add schema for WebPageElement, SiteNavigationElement, WPHeader, WPFooter, and WebPage.
Does anyone have examples of this markup on their site?
In the past I've used the rich snippet tool and had it return error, and in every instance I found that my code did indeed contain an error, so I don't think it's the tool.
I have implemented several of the schema.org WebPageElement types in http://gamesforkidsfree.net/en/ including siteNavigationElement
You can check how it is being recognized by Google in Rich Snippets Testing Tool.
Also in Google Webmaster Tools, there is a section to check this kind of markup at "Optimization / Structured Data", for this case it shows:
Type Schema Items # Pages
---------------------------------------------------------
ItemPage schema.org 109,657 6,866
WPAdBlock schema.org 20,727 6,973
SiteNavigationElement schema.org 7,350 7,322
WPHeader schema.org 7,319 7,319
WPFooter schema.org 7,319 7,319
WebPage schema.org 649 649
Regarding duplicate content you can have a look at one of the many Google support pages about canonicalization (isn't that duplicate content? :) e.g. canonicalization -> hints.
It would be easier to answer if you could show the actual website or a SERP screenshot. By the way I don't think that your problem can be solved using that kind of markup since there is no evidence that Google supports it even if Schema.org is a Google initiative.
For what I understand you have two different kind of issues:
Bad search snippets. Google shows in the search snippet a fragment of the on page text that is relevant to the user query. So what you see on the search snippet largely depends on the query you typed in the search box. If you see a piece of the navigation menu in the snippets it could be that there is no relevant text in the indexed page so Google does not have anything better to show than the text in the navigation menu
Search pages being dropped from the Google index. This is a different, and more serious, problem. Are those "search pages" a good and relevant result compared to the other pages ranking for the query you are typing? Is the main topic of the page clear and explicit (remember that sometimes you nee to spoon-feed the search engines)? I'm giving you more questions than answers but, as I stated before, is not easy to diagnose a SEO problem without seeing the web site.
All the above being said, google does show in its SERP when you define BREADCRUMP and schema.org as a whole is being made by the search engine giants so implementing it ensures some level of better understanding of the bots about your page. Search engines do not tell you everything they do but if you follow the main standards they produce together you pretty much ensure yourself good content availability within the SERPs.
You shouldn't count much on the impact from that though.
I suggest you focus mainly on pretty urls, canonical usage, title, description and proper implementation of schema.org itemprop for your main content type on the inner pages as well as H1 for your title.
Also try to render your main content as high as possible within the html and avoid splitting your title, summary and image… best case scenario they should be close to each other with H1, IMG and P elements and not be divided by divs, tables and so on.
You can have a look at this site http://svejo.net/1792774-protsesat-na-tsifrovizatsiya-v-balgariya-zapochva
It has a pretty good SEO on its article pages and shows up quite nicely and often in SERPs because of its on-page SEO.
I hope this helps you.
First, I apologize if this is not considered programming related enough for some peoples taste, however I feel it is appropriate as my question is related to what you put in a websites markup, I think so anyways.
Ok so I searched Google for the term dribbble invite and on page 2 of my results, or at this URL Google result the 5th result on page 2 (will probably be different for you based on your location and other factors) There is a result like the image below
Notice the author Photo and name. I am looking for how to do this with a website? From my research in the past it looks like it is done with Microformats however a search through the source code of the page HERE does not appear to be using any Microformats.
Any idea how this is happening for that website?
Typically, this is done through Google+.
There's a pretty good article on how-to here :
http://www.labnol.org/internet/author-profile-in-google/19775/
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Okay, I know this question have been asked plenty of times already, but I haven't found any actual answer.
Considering SEO, what is the best way to construct the URL for multiple languages? One top-level domain for each language would feel unnecessary, so I'm thinking about different subdomains or sub-folders. And in that case, which would be better - en.mydomain.com or english.mydomain.com? And if eg. the english version is more viewed than the swedish version, how do I tell the search engines that they actually are the same page?
Pretty everything is answered in this Google Webmasters article: Multi-regional and multilingual sites.
Here's a summary of relevance:
URL structures
Consider using a URL structure that makes it easy to geotarget parts of your site to different regions. The following table outlines your options:
ccTLDs (country-code top-level domain names)
Example: example.de
Pros:
Clear geotargeting
Server location irrelevant
Easy separation of sites
Cons:
Expensive (and may have limited availability)
Requires more infrastructure
Strict ccTLD requirements (sometimes)
Subdomains with gTLDS (generic top-level domain name)
Example: de.example.com
Pros:
Easy to set up
Can use Webmaster Tools geotargeting
Allows different server locations
Easy separation of sites
Cons:
Users might not recognize geotargeting from the URL alone (is "de" the language or country?)
Subdirectories with gTLDs
Example: example.com/de/
Pros:
Easy to set up
Can use Webmaster Tools geotargeting
Low maintenance (same host)
Cons:
Users might not recognize geotargeting from the URL alone
Single server location
Separation of sites harder
URL parameters
Example: example.com?loc=de
Pros:
Not recommended.
Cons:
URL-based segmentation difficult
Users might not recognize geotargeting from the URL alone
Geotargeting in Webmaster Tools is not possible
Duplicate content and international sites
Websites that provide content for different regions and in different languages sometimes create content that is the same or similar but available on different URLs. This is generally not a problem as long as the content is for different users in different countries. While we strongly recommend that you provide unique content for each different group of users, we understand that this may not always be possible. There is generally no need to "hide" the duplicates by disallowing crawling in a robots.txt file or by using a "noindex" robots meta tag. However, if you're providing the same content to the same users on different URLs (for instance, if both example.de/ and example.com/de/ show German language content for users in Germany), you should pick a preferred version and redirect (or use the rel=canonical link element) appropriately.
Google's guidelines are:
Make sure the page language is obvious
Make sure each language version is easily discoverable
This point specifically references URLs as needing to be kept separate. The example they provide is:
For example, the following .ca URLs use fr as a subdomain or subdirectory to clearly indicate French content: http:// example.ca/fr/vélo-de-montagne.html and http:// fr.example.ca/vélo-de-montagne.html.
They also state:
It’s fine to translate words in the URL, or to use an Internationalized Domain Name (IDN). Make sure to use UTF-8 encoding in the URL (in fact, we recommend using UTF-8 wherever possible) and remember to escape the URLs properly when linking to them.
Targeting the site content to a specific country
This is done through CCTLDs, Geotargetting settings in Search Console, Server Location and 'other signals'.
If you're worried about duplicate content, they state:
Websites that provide content for different regions and in different languages sometimes create content that is the same or similar but available on different URLs. This is generally not a problem as long as the content is for different users in different countries. While we strongly recommend that you provide unique content for each different group of users, we understand that this might not always be possible.
If you do re-use the same content across the same website (but in a different language then:
There is generally no need to "hide" the duplicates by disallowing crawling in a robots.txt file or by using a "noindex" robots meta tag.
But!
However, if you're providing the same content to the same users on different URLs (for instance, if both example.de/ and example.com/de/ show German language content for users in Germany), you should pick a preferred version and redirect (or use the rel=canonical link element) appropriately. In addition, you should follow the guidelines on rel-alternate-hreflang to make sure that the correct language or regional URL is served to searchers.
So, be sure to declare the relationship between different languages using hreflang.
Example below:
<link rel="alternate" href="http://example.com" hreflang="en-us" />
You can use this in a number of places including your page markup, HTTP headers, or even the sitemap.
Here's a link to a hreflang generator which you might find useful.
Hope this helps.