3

Google's recently changed it's schema protocals https://searchengineland.com/google-cracks-down-on-some-review-rich-results-322143

In regards to star ratings ...

I'm guessing that a place which charges an entry fee can not be called a "Product" and be reviewed?

Yet a company that organises tours to the place can be reviewed?

Is it just me or do other people actually like to have a place reviews with star ratings?

Example, Buckingham palace has an entrance fee. Does the new Google schema for star ratings mean that you can no longer write a 4.8 star review on Buckingham palace? A place that sells GBP 25 tickets (product).

But you can write a review on ABC tours to Buckingham Palace who sells GBP 40 tickets?

  • 2
    What do you ask exactly -- whether it’s okay to write reviews for places, or whether Google will display a review rich result for reviews of places? – unor Sep 17 at 13:25
  • Both really. I do write reviews for places. And, I do believe having review rich snippets are both good and proper. However, I don't know if places no longer count as rich snippets. Should I change them to "products'" – Dtheme Sep 18 at 14:06
2

Okay. Here is what I see.

I do not see any reference to dropping ratings from the SERPs for charging an entrance fee.

The article and Googles announcement do not seem to mention this.

Both, the article and announcement mention the name property is required. Where both are confusing is that there are more mark-up schemas that include the name property such as place. Place allows for events, reviews, and opening hours. Tourist attaction also allows for events, reviews, and opening hours.

The events allows for offers which can include price.

Following this, it appears that both place and tourist attractions would be allowed according to the announcement where a charge could exist (with one caveat to follow), however, what is confusing is that these schemas are not included in the list.

I have only to conclude that these schemas are allowed to have reviews and charge a fee and that would make complete sense to me. One caveat exists. In both the article and announcement, the reviews cannot be handled by the site itself or by a widget on the site. While I personally do not agree with this, reviews from another site without using a widget may be used. I am, unfortunately, not familiar enough to know how this would work. For example, can you have Yelp reviews without a widget? Perhaps a WordPress plug-in exists that can help for WP users. What other options exist? Who knows.

It is not clear where the line is drawn even with what appears to be simple rules. You are right to be confused. Personally, thinking about local attractions, I cannot see why an attraction should not have reviews. I am just as confused as you are.

The only thing I can see to do is to try it without soliciting reviews on the site or through a widget on the site and see what happens.

  • 1
    Thank you for your in-depth comment on this. At the very least I am glad that I am not the only one confused with this change to the Schema. What I can say so far is that the tourism place continues to show rich snippets. I've noted others online saying they lost their for other reasons not associated with this question. So far a single author reviewing a tourism attraction is still showing rich snippets. Sadly it seems the only thing to do is wait it out. – Dtheme Sep 18 at 14:11
  • 1
    @Dtheme Cheers mate!! Good luck with this. Perhaps there will be clarification in the future. Google used to follow this stack fairly closely. Perhaps they will see this and clarify their policy statement. To be fair, these policy statements can be difficult to write especially when not all usage conditions readily comes to mind. – closetnoc Sep 18 at 14:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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