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.
Related
We've implemented rich snippets for a product type, as well as rich snippets for the organization type.
Both types have their attributes passed into a JSON+LD type script wrapper.
Please see the markup and validation here: Structured Data Testing Tool
Google picks up the organization type and this is verifiable because we've actually changed the logo on our organization card.
However, Google has not picked up any of the rich snippets attributes for our products.
Note Both the product snippet and organization snippet validate perfectly, without any errors or warnings on the Structured Data Testing Tool. I do not think this is an issue with markup unless there is something instrinsically wrong with JSON+LD formatted rich snippets (as opposed to the inline markup variety)
Additional Note These JSON+LDs have been printed inside all of our product pages (30,000+) for well over 3 months now, with no change. This is most likely not an issue of time to propagate.
Further Note We are a very heavily trafficked website that Google shows respect to in search results. So I do not think that obscurity is the cause.
So, my question is: What are some possible reasons the above linked JSON+LD markup is failing? Is it possible that Google is intentionally ignoring it? What are some potential solutions to solving this issue?
Update 2016: The documentation got updated and it no longer contains the note. So now JSON-LD seems to be supported for the Products Rich Snippet.
In Google’s Products Rich Snippet documentation, it is noted for single product pages that the JSON-LD syntax is not yet fully supported:
We are in the process of implementing JSON-LD support for this Rich Snippet type. At the current time, we recommend using microdata or RDFa.
This might explain why it’s (currently) not working.
(Apparently this note was added a few weeks ago.)
So I have this problem, I've done all changes need and suggested by google, and still I don't get those stars under my search since my articles have rating system and it's all packed.
It does show it in google test tool alright but in actual google results it's just simple result block with no extra stuff that I've marked-up, one of those being star rating.
It would be a good idea if you could post a URL of a page that you've marked up so that we could take a look. It's still possible to have technical errors in your markup, and it's also possible that your markup does not meet Google's guidelines, even if the testing tool shows no errors. But even if your markup is technically perfect and it meets Google's guidelines, there are no guarantees that Google will display your rich snippets in the SERPs. Google uses a number of various quality signals to determine if, when, and which rich snippets to display for a page.
But again, if you could share a URL with us, we could at least take a closer look at things. Thanks.
What will happen if Microdata and RDFa both are on a webpage?
What I can tell from my experience from a class of web pages where I have implemented Microdata where RDFa contents was already there is that Google possibly does not read Microdata. I see one element down the hierarchy is not correct according to Rich Snippet tool but still many things Google can read according to that tool.
Want to know the exact reason, why Google has not taken those Microdata into search result?
The Rich Snippet tool view of my page is here.
Nothing special will happen. However, as you observed, there may be parties that only read one format (and others read only the other format, or both, or neither). I think the processors of RDFa and microdata will (eventually) all read all formats, so it shouldn't matter which you pick.
The help page says
You can use microformats, microdata, or RDFa to mark up your content. However, you should pick one markup standard and use it consistently across the page.
This suggests you should pick one, but no exact reason is given. I can't give an exact reason, because I don't work for Google.
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.
I'm working on a website on which I am asked to add to the homepage's footer a list of all the products that are sold on the website along with a link to the products' detail pages.
The problem is that there are about 900 items to display.
Not only that doesn't look good but that makes the page render a lot slower.
I've been told that such a technique would improve the website's visibility in Search Engine.
I've also heard that such techniques could lead to the opposite effect: google seeing it as "spam".
My question is: Is listing products of a website on its homepage really efficient when it comes to becoming more visible on search engines?
That technique is called keyword stuffing and Google says that it's not a good idea:
"Keyword stuffing" refers to the practice of loading a webpage with keywords in an attempt to manipulate a site's ranking in Google's search results. Filling pages with keywords results in a negative user experience, and can harm your site's ranking. Focus on creating useful, information-rich content that uses keywords appropriately and in context.
Now you might want to ask: Does their crawler really realize that the list at the bottom of the page is just keyword stuffing? Well, that's a question that only Google could answer (and I'm pretty sure that they don't want to). In any case: Even if you could make a keyword stuffing block that is not recognized, they will probably improve they algorithm and -- sooner or later -- discover the truth. My recommendation: Don't do it.
If you want to optimize your search engine page ranking, do it "the right way" and read the Search Engine Optimization Guide published by Google.
Google is likely to see a huge list of keywords at the bottom of each page as spam. I'd highly recommend not doing this.
When is it ever a good idea to specify 900 items to a user? good practice dictates that large lists are usually paginated to avoid giving the user a huge blob of stuff to look through at once.
That's a good rule of thumb, if you're doing it to help the user, then it's probably good ... if you're doing it purely to help a machine (ie. google/bing), then it might be a bad idea.
You can return different html to genuine users and google by inspecting the user agent of the web request.
That way you can provide the google bot with a lot more text than you'd give a human user.
Update: People have pointed out that you shouldn't do this. I'm leaving this answer up though so that people know it's possible but bad.