Hot answers tagged

15

Microdata extends HTML5 in a way that link and meta elements can be used in the body, if they contain an itemprop attribute. If the itemprop attribute is present on link or meta, they are flow content and phrasing content. The link and meta elements may be used where phrasing content is expected if the itemprop attribute is present. This extension is ...


12

The three big search engines, Google, Bing and Yahoo (and more recently, Yandex), have agreed to understand 1 single microdata vocabulary. This is Schema.org, which has examples of placement. This formats your results as Rich Snippets, the search engine results which have pictures and fivestar ratings, etc, displayed on the search result page. While this ...


12

schema.org: Article, BlogPosting If something is a schema:BlogPosting, it is an schema:Article, too, isn't it? As schema:BlogPosting is a more specific schema:Article: More specific types BlogPosting NewsArticle ScholarlyArticle So you have an schema:Article, and now you may decide if one of these more specific types applies to your ...


9

W3Schools does not set the industry standards on HTML coding. They are simply a 3rd party reference site that is not affiliated with the W3C in anyway. W3Schools and other sites are often wrong when using cutting edge coding technologies such as Schema and Responsive design. When using fairly new code your one stop shop should be W3C as set the compliance ...


9

schema.org/BlogPosting image permits ImageObject and URL, however Google only permits ImageObject, hence the error. The intended markup is: <!-- my code --> <div itemprop="image" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject"> <img src="image.jpg" itemprop="url"> </div>                 Another discrepancy is schema.org/...


8

Both are solutions for semantically annotating your content, but in very different ways: Microdata extends HTML5 (e.g., by introducing new attributes like itemprop), while Microformats only uses existing HTML mechanisms (like class and rel attributes). With Microdata, you can use almost any vocabulary (a popular one is Schema.org), with Microformats you ...


7

Your rich snippet data needs to be visible to users. From Google's rich snippet troubleshooting: Is your marked-up content hidden from users? In general, Google won't display any content in rich snippets that is not visible to human user. It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet in one place on the page, mark it up, and ...


7

Google recommends using microdata, but it does support three formats: microdata, microformats, and RDFa. A big reason to choose microdata would be that the examples that Google gives on it's website and those on schema.org are in the microdata format. Here is a site that has a huge table of the various advantages and disadvantages of the three formats. ...


7

These are no resources which get usually accessed by the browser but simply a fancy way to declare a name space, i.e. all SVG images share the same XML name space which is defined by the URL and same with xlink. This means you should treat any of these xmlns just as some kind of special string and leave them unchanged.


6

You could use the itemref attribute. From the Microdata (W3C Working Group Note) spec: 4.2 The basic syntax: Properties that are not descendants of the element with the itemscope attribute can be associated with the item using the itemref attribute. This attribute takes a list of IDs of elements to crawl in addition to crawling the children of the ...


6

Typically, user agents wouldn’t dereference these URIs. There should be absolutely no problem in using the Schema.org HTTP URIs on a HTTPS site. In fact, many other vocabularies (used for Microdata or RDFa) provide only HTTP URIs, so you have no choice there. I’d even say it’s bad practice to provide multiple vocabulary URIs for the same concept, as ...


6

JSON-LD doesn’t care. Which makes sense, because the data is the same, no matter from where in the document it gets extracted. From the perspective of HTML, you should only include it in the head if the JSON-LD is about your web page or about what your web page represents, because the head element is defined to contain metadata for the document. But it’s ...


5

Microdata doesn’t have a concept of "site"; each page is separate. So you should include all relevant metadata on every page where the corresponding content is visible (but only one time per page). Think of a browser-add on that displays all Microdata name-value pairs in a sidebar: why should the user have to visit a specific page of your site to see the ...


5

Your questions seem to be: Can I specify itemprop="url" on li? Can I specify itemprop="name" on a? The answer to both of these questions is: No, you should not do that. Microdata defines special parsing rules for elements like a. Schema.org’s url property expects a URL as value. Microdata defines that you have to use elements like a/area/link/etc. (...


4

You can also check your microdata format against Google Webmaster Tools, rich snippet testing tool at http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets


4

If there is a microformat for the data you have on your website and you wish to optimize your website for the search engines then you should use use microformats in your websites. How much of a difference it will make in your SEO efforts will vary just like every other thing that has to do with SEO. It will depend on lots of other factors. But if you want to ...


4

Google won't pick up on any markup that isn't visible to users. Because of this policy, they are unlikely to recognize any structured data that is in <script> tags. In general, Google won't display any content in rich snippets that is not visible to human user. Don't hide the content that you have marked up for rich snippets using techniques like ...


4

Your plan of using meta data for microdata is not viable. Here is Google's FAQ about why it isn't showing your data in the search results: Is your marked-up content hidden from users? In general, Google won't display any content in rich snippets that is not visible to human user. Don't hide the content that you have marked up for rich snippets ...


4

Note that syntaxes like Microdata and RDFa don’t annotate the HTML, they use the HTML just as a carrier. After parsing the Microdata/RDFa, it doesn’t matter anymore which markup was used. If your two properties with the same content belong to the same item, it’s not useful to have the additional one, as it doesn’t add anything new (but it’s not forbidden ...


4

What makes it worthwhile providing metadata? The fact that companies like Google and Microsoft provide this metadata also themselves? Or the fact that these companies make use of the metadata you provide? The Schema.org sponsor’s search engines provide no (Bing, Yahoo, Yandex) to little (Google) metadata using the Schema.org vocabulary, and this might ...


4

you should be clear, why do you want to make use of structured data? to go through the testing tool or to deliver correctly formatted and standard conform structured data to search engine, so your site will be included into Google News output? Google News Article needs image: that's the fact. Why it needs it? To show it to the people. What are solutions? ...


4

The mainEntityOfPage property is used to give the URL of a page on which the thing is the main entity. It might become clearer if you look at the inverse property mainEntity: this gives the main entity for a page (see an example). For example, for a web page that contains a single blog post, you could provide one of these: BlogPosting → mainEntityOfPage →...


3

I suspect it's because that Person schema is the only schema used on the page, so Google is assuming that the whole page is supposed to be about the person, and that all the other stuff around it is just irrelevant fluff, at least as far as microdata is concerned. You may want to try marking the whole page as an Article or a Web Page or some other Creative ...


3

You should use <meta itemprop="image" content="/uploads/images/medium/product_img.jpg"> Since src="" is associated with embedding content on the page and content="" is associated with embedding items off the page so to speak. This is the same method as used with the Facebook Open Graph meta as well, take a look: <meta property='og:image' content=...


3

No, you don't need to duplicate the HTML exactly: microdata schemas are based on the microdata attributes. It doesn't matter (usually; e.g. links are an exception) what HTML tag those attributes are applied to. You may want to start by reading "Getting started with schema.org", if you haven't already.


3

With this implementation: <div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb"> <a href="http://www.example.com/dresses" itemprop="url"> <span itemprop="title">Dresses</span> </a> &gt; </div> <div itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Breadcrumb"> <a href="http://www....


3

The basic direction is correct, but you must use <link> and href=... instead of meta, since the value is a URL/URI, not a string: <link itemprop="acceptedPaymentMethod" href="http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#PayPal" /> <link itemprop="acceptedPaymentMethod" href=" http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#PaymentMethodCreditCard" /> The rest ...


3

From schema.org: This site provides a collection of schemas, i.e., html tags, that webmasters can use to markup their pages in ways recognized by major search providers. Search engines including Bing, Google and Yahoo! rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right web pages. Many ...


3

In my view and experience, blog post schema should be used for posts on a blog. It contains all the properties you may require on a blog posts (albeit, so does article schema). The more a search engine utilises information provided via Schema, the more relevant your content becomes if it can be correctly identified (is marked up). I'd associate Articles ...


3

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 ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible