Has my Rich Snuppet attempt passed the test?
-
Good Morning from 16 degrees C still sunny Wetherby UK....
For the first time ive dived into Microformat,s schema.org Microdata call it what you will "Rich snippets"
On this http://www.barrettsteel.com/ site on the bottom left I tweeked the address into a rich nippet, here is what i did:
I then diligently tried to find out if it was valid by running it through http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets but I'm not 100% clear if its passed
So my question is please can anyone verify if the snippet data is valid.
Thanks in advance,
David
-
Thanks Martin
-
Lookms ok to me also, Martin makes a good point of keep consistant across the net
-
This is looking okay to me - with the only issue being that the +44 and (0) are outside of your Telephone Itemprop. You want to include one or both inside this.
What you're trying to achieve is a good rich snippet and consistency with other places your details are shown - e.g. Google Maps, local directories etc. And the area code is part of your local identity, so in the very least, put the zero inside the telephone itemprop.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
URL Inspector, Rich Results Tool, GSC unable to detect Logo inside Embedded schema
I work on a news site and we updated our Schema set up last week. Since then, valid Logo items are dropping like flies in Search Console. Both URL inspector & Rich Results test cannot seem to be able to detect Logo on articles. Is this a bug or can Googlebot really not see schema nested within other schema?Previously, we had both Organization and Article schema, separately, on all article pages (with Organization repeated inside publisher attribute). We removed the separate Organization, and now just have Article with Organization inside the publisher attribute. Code is valid in Structured Data testing tool but URL inspection etc. cannot detect it. Example: https://bit.ly/2TY9Bct Here is this page in URL inspector:
Technical SEO | | ValnetIncBy comparison, we also have Organization schema (un-nested) on our homepage. Interestingly enough, the tools can detect that no problem. That's leading me to believe that either nested schema is unreadable by Googlebot OR that this is not an accurate representation of Googlebot and it's only unreadable by the testing tools. Here is the homepage in URL inspector:
In pseudo-code, our OLD schema looked like this: The NEW schema set up has the same Article schema set up, but the separate script for Organization has been removed. We made the change to embed our schema for a couple reasons: first, because Google's best practices say that if multiple schemas are used, Google will choose the best one so it's better to just have one script; second, Google's codelabs tutorial for schema uses a nested structure to indicate hierarchy of relevancy to the page. My question is, does nesting schemas like this make it impossible for Googlebot to detect a schema type that's 2 or more levels deep? Or is this just a bug with the testing tools?
0 -
Deleteing old page and passing on link strenth?
We are a printing company and thinking over bringing our products down to 2 - 3 rather than the 10+ we currently have, the pages we will be getting rid of will be pages such as flyers, booklets etc and just concentrating on banners and stickers would you suggest 301ing the pages to the home page or picking pages for them to go to? Also could we expect a decent raise for the pages we are left with? Thanks shaun
Technical SEO | | BobAnderson0 -
Crawl Attempt Errors & Homepage Not Ranking
Hi all, I have scanned the community forum thoroughly to find a solution to this issue and noticed some detailed and informed responses, but I am not sure which apply to the issue we are currently having. We are receiving a lot of 803 Crawl Attempt Errors on a weekly basis for our site www.mangofurniture.co.uk and also our homepage isn't ranking and I can't help but think that the two are linked. We have some rankings for the internal pages and have a couple of other sites that use the same template as www.mangofurniture.co.uk that are doing well with no crawl attempt errors and strong homepage rankings. There are a lot of great resources out there on the Moz forum and elsewhere but I am little unsure what applies to our problem or whether to two are linked at all. We have tried rewriting the homepage and developing the internal linking system but to no success as yet. Also, because the site is fairly new so the link profile is quite small at present. Any advice regarding this would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | FurnitureGeek0 -
Blocking Test Pages Enmasse on Sub-domain
Hello, We have thousands of test pages on a sub-domain of our site. Unfortunately at some point, these pages were visible to search engines and got indexed. Subsequently, we made a change to the robots.txt file for the test sub-domain. Gradually, over a period of a few weeks, the impressions and clicks as reported by Google Webmaster Tools fell off for the test. sub-domain. We are not able to implement the no index tag in the head section of the pages given the limitations of our CMS. Would blocking off Google bot via the firewall enmasse for all the test pages have any negative consequences for the main domain that houses the real live content for our sites (which we would like to of course remain in the Google index). Many thanks
Technical SEO | | CeeC-Blogger0 -
Can a 307 Redirect Pass on a Manual Google Link Penalty?
Hi, I am using a 307 redirect to redirect traffic from an old site which has a google manual link penalty against it to a brand new site. My understanding is that 307 will not pass on link juice which is okay as I'm starting fresh with the new site, but I would hate to risk having the penalty from the old site being passed onto the new site. I am using a 307 in lieu of have a "Click Here to be directed to new site" page.. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | Robdob20130 -
Google+ Authorship, Rich Snippits and Three Names - a Problem?
Hello All, I have a conundrum that I thought I'd resolved - but that's popped its gnarly old head over the parapet again. I have a number of websites that I'd like to have show my ugly Google+ mug as author in the Google SERPS. I jumped through all the authorship verification hoops that Google threw at me and I thought I'd won. The problem? I have three names: Nick Beresford-Davies. One example of a page that I'm trying to achieve authorship with is: http://www.graphic-design-employment.com/illustrator-how-to-make-a-pattern.html I have verified authorship of the above website on my Google Profile:
Technical SEO | | Tinstar
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107765436751760696335/about Originally I footed the page with Nick Beresford-Davies (hyphenated) and the Structured Data Testing Tool ignored the hyphen and just saw Nick Beresford. So I tweaked my online name (to please Google!) to Nick Beresford Davies (no hyphen). Initially this seemed to work - but I just checked again and now Google, for reasons only known to itself, sees "nick davies" as the author, completely ignoring the name in the footer of the page (by Nick Beresford Davies) and the fact that the site has been verified by Google+. This is also the case for all other websites that I contribute to - and not all the bylines are in the footer - some are by the headline. When I test pages on the structured testing tool and enter my Google+ profile, it replies: nick davies, we've found your name as one of the authors from the page. You can use "Authorship verification by email" method above to verify your authorship.Error: Author name found on the page and Google+ profile name do not match. Please consider adding markup to the site.Much as I would like to succeed on the Google SERPS, I draw the line at changing my name to keep this robot happy - so if anyone has any suggestions, or can see any obvious step that I've missed, I'd be very grateful. I find it hard to believe that no other double-barrelled website author exists - so I'm hoping I'm not the only one to have experienced this... Thanks!0 -
Do 301 redirects now allow most of the bad value to pass through?
I heard after the 3.2 update that most of your bad history passes though the 301 redirect.. What do you guys think out there?
Technical SEO | | Merta19801 -
How much authority does a 301 pass to a different domain?
Hi, A client of mine is selling his business to a brand new company. The brand new company will be using a brand new domain (no way to avoid that unfortunately) and the current domain (which has tons of authority, links, shares, tweets, etc.) will not be used. Added to that, the new company will be taking over all the current content with just a few minor changes. (I know, I wish we could use the old domain but we can't.) Obviously, I am redirecting all pages on the current domain to the new domain via 301 redirects on a page by page basis. So, current.com/product-page-x.html redirects to new.com/product-page-x.html. My client and the new company both are asking me how much link juice (and other factors) are passed along to the new domain from the old domain. All I can find is "not the full value" or variants thereof.My experience with 301 redirects in the past has been within a single domain and I've seen some of those pages have decent authority and decent rankings as a result of the 301 (no other optimization work was done or links were added). Are there any studies out there that I'm missing that show how much authority/juice gets passed and/or lost via a 301 redirect? Anybody with a similar issue see any trends in page/domain authority and/or rankings? Thanks for any insights and opinions you have.
Technical SEO | | Matthew_Edgar0