I've been reading about Microdata and its implementation, however the examples are quite simple and I'm yet to find a website that thoroughly implements structured data throughout the entire site.

So as I was implementing the markup I started to dig up questions on how would be the best way to do this. One of the main dilemmas I'm facing is whether it's best to create independent items (Schema.org items) or rather create an item that represents the page with all its content as nested items that belong to that parent item.

So I could have markup that would reflect the following:

- Company
- Product
- Offers
- Article

Or it could be something like this:

- Company
    - Product
        - Article
    - Offers

Where the indentation reflects its nesting (for this question I didn't bother to figure out if this is actually doable for these item types, it's just a generic pseudo-example).

So basically I'm just not sure how a search engine would use this information, because if I nest it, the page would contain a single item with various properties (that would be items themselves) but I'm unaware as to how these examples would be treated and which would be the pros and cons of each solution.

  • If anyone wants to help out on another related question -> stackoverflow.com/questions/24489028/… Commented Jun 30, 2014 at 15:06
  • When you refer to "nesting", do you mean the HTML level (child elements) or the Microdata level (properties with item value)?
    – unor
    Commented Jul 1, 2014 at 15:46
  • @unor I'm refering to microdata level nesting of items within their appropriate properties Commented Jul 1, 2014 at 15:53

1 Answer 1


[Updated: I suggest nesting types/elements when mark-up appears to require it. The reason is simple. You never know how the data will be used and where nesting is appropriate, nesting will give a clearer picture of the data you are marking-up.

Nesting does not always seem possible when you try and stitch mark-up into your HTML. It can be a real struggle sometimes. This is an important challenge to conquer. In this case, you may need to use id and then itemref to refer to parts of your schema definition to create relationships. The more data that you try and mark-up, the more difficult it will become to juggle all of the types/elements and therefore some compromises may need to be made- but never compromise on nesting types and elements and never break them up. The reason is simple. Nesting allows types and elements to have relationships. Breaking up types/elements and not properly nesting them will break the relationships between types/elements and make the mark-up less effective.]

I also strongly warn anyone to pay attention to nesting. Your mark-up may appear correct but not work while a simple nesting issue exists. I have seen this several times on this site. It can be confusing using mark-up and anyone can go cross-eyed very quickly.

  • I can't vote up for now, but thanks... I'll wait a couple of days to see if we get more input, but I had a gut feeling that would be the case. I just wasn't sure if it would be safe to assume they (search engines) would extract the information as a single item or as individual items with relationships when nested Commented Jun 30, 2014 at 16:08
  • Thanks! Schema.org mark-up is actually still new and in 2013/2014, Google was still writing code to handle the definitions that schema.org had. I suspect that Google is still hot on this and I am (almost) willing to bet the farm (since I have one) that Google will push mark-up even further. From a big-data perspective, this is a huge new advantage in the search world and I am sure that Google realizes it too.
    – closetnoc
    Commented Jun 30, 2014 at 16:13
  • I'm counting on it also, I'm relatively new to webdesign so I'm trying to get into something fresh in the marketplace to try and have some worth over other types of practices. We gotta put our money on a horse to try and win :p Commented Jun 30, 2014 at 16:18
  • Btw I commented on my question regarding a related question I made. I'd love to hear your opinion on it, since it's implementation goes towards the cross-eye you mentioned Commented Jun 30, 2014 at 16:20
  • 1
    @Fernando Silva Thanks for sharing that! This is how we all learn.
    – closetnoc
    Commented Jul 2, 2014 at 3:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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