Implemented schema.org on our website and it's showing up as being correct but I've been told its wrong- can someone please have a quick look ?
-
Dear Mozzers,
We have implemented schema.org on our website and it's showing up as being correct.
However, I've been told by a SEO company that what we have done is incorrect and is therefore giving out wrong signals to google and that it needs fixing but they haven't told me whats wrong with it.
Would someone please be able to have to have a quick scan and highlight anything that is not correct. I have enclosed 4 urls belows of the different sections of my website.
My website homepage - is -- http://goo.gl/2F80w2
We have a number of branches- An example branch url is - http://goo.gl/8FpcaS
example category url - http://goo.gl/gbAaD2
example product url - http://goo.gl/EXI1Sr
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Many thanks
Peter -
Hi Peter, I am very glad I could be of help. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you sincerely, Thomas
-
Hi Tom,
Many thanks , Very helpful links here. I will take a look
thanks
Peter
-
Hi Peter
Can only agree with Dirk on this, I have only ever seen the markup in one area when it has been implemented using JSON-LD, we did recently do some markup for a client using Magento which uses a third party search system.
We implemented the code in the normal manner which shows up in the html blocks as Dirk mentioned this was rewritten by the 3rd party search system to use JSON-LD and the code was then all in a nice neat block. But I have never heard of this being a requirement.
Andrew
-
Some outstanding examples can be found here
https://builtvisible.com/micro-data-schema-org-guide-generating-rich-snippets/
Then test your own site and other sites that you know will have proper implementation using
https://www.deepcrawl.com/knowledge/best-practice/schema-101-the-tags-that-search-engines-support/
THE REGEXES:
Use the pre-written regex below to extract your site’s schema tags.
MICRODATA ONLY:
microdata:(itemtype=["']http\:\/\/schema.org) microdata-itemtype:{0..9}itemtype\s?=['"\s]?http\:\/\/schema.org\/([^\"\s\']*)
RDFA ONLY:
rdfa:(vocab=['"]http:\/\/schema.org\/['"]) rdfa-typeof:{0..9}typeof=['"]([^"']*)"
JSON ONLY:
json-ld:(
-
If the markup passes the test it's valid markup & meets Google's guidelines. It would seem a bit ridiculous for Google to develop a test if the results of the test were not valid.
Never heard that markup needs to be put in one place. Most of the time the markup is inserted within your HTML so you will have several blocks of markup (unless you use the JSON-LD markup).
Dirk
-
Many thanks Both,
The SEO company got back to me and implied that as my webpages contain contains several blocks of markup , the first issue is that they need to be condensed into one set of markup for each page.
The also said, it was to basic and not extensive enough and even though Google's testing tool does not indicate any errors does not necessarily mean that the markup is correct or that it meets Google's guidelines.
Do you know if they have a point about the single markup as opposed to several blocks of markup per page as I have never heard that point mentioned before?
thanks
Peter
-
I have checked all of the urls that you have added in your question above and I can confirm that they are all clean and green according to the Structured Data Testing Tool as highlighted by Dirk above https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ so not sure what the SEO Company is looking at.
-
Hi
You can check the implementation in Webmastertools https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ - or in a tool like https://webmaster.yandex.com/microtest.xml
I checked a branch page - for Yandex some of the fields are not correct (url / local address / local phone missing) - but most of it seems ok. For Google everything was ok.
You could check the other pages as well using these tools.
Dirk
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
What's the best approach to deleting a location page ?
We have several locations that moved to be under a parent location. Should I do a 404 redirect or a 301 redirect to parent page where they can find information about the location they are searching for.
Local SEO | | lina_digital0 -
If I kill off the franchisee websites and create a corp SEO monster...will my Company's SEO suffer? Pros and Cons?
Our 25 franchisees sell one product of our 7 within the Corporate porfolio. We getting ready to release a brand new corp website employing all the best possible SEO practices. Since the franchisee's barely maintain their 3-page website...we are thinking of killing them off. We will create some market pages on the Corp side and continue to use HubSpot to pass along leads to the individual franchisees. Corporate has robust Content Marketing strategy in place. Any suggestions? Cases studies?
Local SEO | | Joseph.Lusso0 -
Community Discussion: Miriam's 2017 Local SEO Predictions ... And Yours?
I want to start this thread by thanking everyone in our community who has started and contributed to great threads this past year. You guys are an inspiration! I want to offer up a few predictions for the Local SEO industry in 2017 and ask you to contribute your own: Attribution will be big in 2017. Google will roll out a more thorough set of attributes in the GMB dashboard as we move forward through the new year. We'll see further rollout out of paid packs in service industries in which Google can play the middle man role. Free-packs won't be gone by the end of the year, but there will be fewer of them. Even SMB local businesses will have to start to tackle the ramifications of voice search. Local SEO will continue to merge with traditional, offline marketing. Local business websites will still matter, but Google will continue to do all it can to keep users within layers of its own local product, and some people will find this maze a bit bewildering. Reviews will finally be recognized as an integral facet of citations, rather than as something separate from them. Now, please, look into your own crystal ball and share your predictions with the community. What are your predictions for Local SEO in 2017? I'd love to know. And, while I'm at it, please let me wish each of you a busy and profitable new year in our exciting industry!
Local SEO | | MiriamEllis4 -
Getting Schooled in Local by 'Lesser' Brands?
Hi Moz! First question I've asked here. I've been working on campaign for my company (regional solar installation company in Northeast USA) for close to 7 years, we've always done well in local search but recently have noticed sites that, for lack of a better word, we 'school' in terms of all the usual metrics - better/more consistent local listings, better domain strength, better backlink profile, bigger company (in the real world), brand recognition, etc... However recently we have started seeing smaller competitors beat us in state-specific rankings, using stuff I would call 'old school' SEO that is no longer really tolerated, in theory - stuffing keywords onto page, keywords in domain, etc... domains of much less strength pulling #1 or #2 terms. Based on data I don't actually think keywords like "solar + state name" are actually that powerfully but frankly it is bit embarrassing to get crushed by 1-2 person companies when you have a 150+ company with a three-person in-house digital marketing team. My strategy so far has consisted of building a better Google review solicitation process, adding schema markup to our project gallery, and some SEO 101 stuff like reworking keywords and title tags. I've noticed a strong uptick on our site of leads from outside our territory (like folks from all across the USA who are NOT in our service territory) - I'm almost thinking I've done 'too good' a job of building a nationally relevant website and not enough state-specific options. Has anyone ever experienced something like this? Any clever strategies beyond the obvious? Can share more specifics if it'll be helpful. Cheers,
Local SEO | | revisionsolar
Fred0 -
When you think you know Google, but realise you don't
I've just typed "Private Investigator" into Google, location set to "Coleshill" (it's near Birmingham!)
Local SEO | | Solid_Web
The search results were surprising:
Position 6: <cite class="_Rm">birmingham-privateinvestigators.co.uk</cite>
Position 8: <cite class="_Rm">privateinvestigator-coventry.co.uk</cite> Both sites are the same source of information altered to suit the city - INCREDIBLY SPAMMY. They are just full of SEO text stuffing. No doubt any city you enter they will appear with [city]-privateinvestigators.co.uk..
How are they ranking with such old-skool dirty SEO tactics? You can't say they will be found eventually, because Google has released algorithm after algorithm updates to penalise sites like this. Could it be the importance of having a local phone number and (supposedly) physical address?0 -
What can I do to rank higher than low-quality low-content sites?
We lost our site in an actual meltdown at our hosting provider in January, and decided to do a new site instead of bring back a dated backup. So we've only been "active" at our URL since about May. That said, I have not seen any irregular or unexpected penalties. Not showing up is natural if you have literally nothing to show. We have had a site since then, though, and while it isn't going to win any award, we've built it with best practices using sites like this, trying to use natural, helpful, actual language to convey what we do and why we do it (we're web developers for small business making WordPress sites). Paying attention to titles, keyword frequency and variability, alt tags, etc. Always erring on the conservative side. While we build sites for people across the country (and a few in places like the UK), we just moved into an actual office space in our hometown so it's never been more important to push our visibility locally. We've just come back on the scene, in relative terms, so there's no expectation we'll crack the top five or ten; they all have teams of people and bags of capital and have been around many, many years, plus they link to the dozens upon dozens of sites they have done and promote their appearances in press releases and such. Their content is not bad, and most of it is good and not spammy. They are being genuine. That said, we're in the late 40s to late 50s right now. Happy to show up at all, but after that first group of legitimate sites, there are automatically generated webpages (which I thought couldn't even be listed...one is an MP3 download site that mentions one of the top companies in the page title, and just has a random video on the page) local companies touting themselves as SEO "experts" that say things like "Here at Company X, we work hard to bring you the best Rochester, NY web design in the hopes that when you make your Rochester, NY web design decisions, you'll think of us first Rochester, NY web design." I changed the company name and the location, but that's an actual line from their site job listings from places like Craigslist and Indeed hair stylists dentists (?!) Our code validates, we've incorporated Schema for our addresses, our site is usually fast (650ms to 1.3s in Pingdom from Dallas). We don't do any redirecting, our metas likes everyone else's don't count for ranking but are thoughtfully produced, we pay attention to using concise and accurate URLs without stop words, etc. There are also very very few resources loaded on a given page. That said, there's not a lot on the blog that's new and all told we have I think 13 total pages including a few posts. Is it even possible to get close to the actual pack if we, for example, posted more regularly? I was just reading here about how we shouldn't put our links in the site footers of our clients (which we don't always anyway), so I have them only as branded links, only on the homepages, and only on sites that, when crawled, didn't have nonzero spam scores (everyone else has a nofollow link in our portfolio). I realize this is a super generic question but I wasn't quite sure how to search out this particular use case given that our aspirations are so basic...just trying to figure out if there's something obvious we're missing and shooting ourselves in the foot over. A thousand pledges of gratitude! (if this is too common and I just didn't see a duplicate, let me know and I will delete it or ask for it to be deleted....also, I don't want to appear spammy so I am not linking to my site unless it's absolutely necessary...not sure what protocol is...I'm pretty self-aware so I do believe everything I've said above is true).
Local SEO | | eaglenestmedia1 -
All of our clients are showing an increase in traffic from Brazil?
Hello, I am concerned as all 30 of our clients show traffic coming from Brazil-and they are all locally-serving businesses. What's more, the visitors from Brazil is increasing in GA. It's looking more and more like our competitor is trying to thwart our good rankings by using some overseas IPs to mess with traffic. Is there anything I can do? There is no reason why any of our clients would be relevant to Brazil, as they serve only local clients. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Local SEO | | lfrazer0 -
Google's rel=publisher tag question
Hi, i have a question about the use of rel=publisher tag on a large retail website with multiple local stores. There is 1 e-commerce website where i want to put the rel publisher tag from the main Google + businesspage. There are also 60 local google+businesspages, And on the main website every store has his own store-page. Is it good to put on all the 60 storepages their own rel=publishertag connected with the localbusinesspages on google? Or should i Stick at the main rel=publisher tag connected with the main google+page? Thanx, Leonie
Local SEO | | Leonie-Kramer0