Take the 2-minute tour ×
Webmasters Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for pro webmasters. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Google and other SEs support schema.org for marking up structured data, but it turns out that for breadcrumbs Google recommends using data-vocabulary.org instead.

Which should we use for having breadcrumbs appear in search results?

Breadcrumb rich snippet example in Google SERP

I noticed that there are issues with the Schema markup for breadcrumbs, so does that mean it's best not to use it for now?

The code suggested in each is slightly different — so changing from one to the other site-wide in the future could be a nuisance:

Schema

<body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage">
...
<div itemprop="breadcrumb">
  <a href="category/books.html">Books</a> >
  <a href="category/books-literature.html">Literature & Fiction</a> >
  <a href="category/books-classics">Classics</a>
</div>

Data Vocabulary

<div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
  <a href="http://www.example.com/dresses" itemprop="url">
    <span itemprop="title">Dresses</span>
  </a> ›
</div>  
<div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
  <a href="http://www.example.com/dresses/real" itemprop="url">
    <span itemprop="title">Real Dresses</span>
  </a> ›
</div>  
<div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb">
  <a href="http://www.example.com/clothes/dresses/real/green" itemprop="url">
    <span itemprop="title">Real Green Dresses</span>
  </a>
</div>
share|improve this question
    
You don't actually need any markup on breadcrumbs to make them appear in the SERPS. Simply having bread crumb navigation is enough to make them appear in the SERPS in my experience. Just a thought. –  Max Jul 4 '13 at 9:53
    
Yup, but mot always (and not in this case, for a very high-authority site) –  Baumr Jul 4 '13 at 9:57
2  
Yuck, yet another microformat. The Semantic web is now the Symantec web? As in larger, slower and less understandable? This thing of throwing yet another standard in the mix... instead of fixing what we already have. –  Fiasco Labs Jul 4 '13 at 16:17
    
@FiascoLabs, word — personally I like RDFa: covers most bases –  Baumr Jul 4 '13 at 16:23
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Yes, avoid Schema for now and use Data Vocabulary, for exactly the reason you cite. I've used the latter, and it works.

John Mueller from Google has said that he expects Schema will have to change, and the discussion around it seems to suggest that Schema needs to be more like the current Data Vocabulary syntax, so any future adaptations you need to make may be less onerous than they currently appear.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.