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

On my site, http://whatgoeswiththis.co, I'm getting persistent errors found by Google Webmaster Tools for my markup of UserComments - it's saying that at each instance I'm missing location, name, and startDate (2 times) properties.

I didn't see anywhere that these are required, and I don't have geolocation of any users' comments on my site. Is this simply an error I can ignore, or might it be better to simply remove the UserComments markup from my site?

Update: it appears from this page that because UserComments is a subcategory of the event property, google seems to require these three fields: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/164506?hl=en&ref_topic=1088474

Perhaps the answer is to use 'comments' property instead? Or just leave as it is? Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
can you post the page with the microdata or the complete code here? In any case, considering the context, comment is more accurate since it's not an event what people are talking about. –  PatomaS Feb 13 at 0:44
    
@PatomaS here is an example page: whatgoeswiththis.co/request/429/recommendation/2099, the comments are below the images. Thanks! –  YPCrumble Feb 13 at 7:42

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

There are some errors on your code and in your microdata, but I didn't see any problem with UserComments. I had to use the option "view generated content" and upload the code to Structured Data Testing Tool. You can find it in here. Although I don't know for how long is going to be available.

Use some validation tools to help with the code errors.

About the microdata, considering the site and the product pages, it will be best to use review on the comments.

You could also use comment as I mentioned before, it's not really about a creative work, but for now, it seems to be the closest one to real life, plus since you can also add a creator for that comment, it clearly gives the authorship to the rightful owner and it will not affect the website.

One of the errors is about using an attribute seller which doesn't exist as part of the product, but you can use seller from offer.

Some times, the resources on schema.org seem to be a bit short, even in obvious things, like comments or seller, both of which you would expect to exist on categories already there and with many attributes, but you also have the option, if you want, to try to extend the actual schema, or just not add microdata to that part of the content.

share|improve this answer

Schema.org doesn’t define required properties.

When Google complains about missing properties, it probably means: "We won’t use your Schema.org data for enhancing the display of your SERP snippet."

[…] might it be better to simply remove the UserComments markup from my site?

It won’t hurt to keep this markup. It may be useful for various other consumers (search engines, browser add-ons, …), and maybe Google will someday change their rules and your Schema.org data will be used by them, too.

share|improve this answer
    
@SathiyaKumar: Hmm, I don’t really agree with using code markup for "schema.org", which is used as a name for the vocabulary, not the domain here. (But I should probably capitalize it everytime.) –  unor Feb 13 at 16:46

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.