Does Schema.org markup create a conflict with Power Reviews' standard microformat markup for e-commerce product pages?
-
Does anyone have experience implementing Schema.org markup on e-commerce websites that are already using Power Reviews (now Bazaar)? In Google's documentation they say that it's generally not a good idea to use two types of semantic markup for the same item (reviews in this case), but I wouldn't think that there would be a problem marking up other items on the page with Schema such as price, stock status, etc...
Anyone care to provide some insight?
Also in a related topic, have you all noticed that Google has really dialed back the frequency in which they display rich snippets for product searches? A few weeks ago the site that I'm referring to had hundreds of products that were displaying snippets, now it seems that only about 10% (roughly) of them are still showing.
Thanks everybody.
-
I actually meant the new one- not the option that was in Labs. You can access it through:
Optimization>structured data , in the case of the domain I was referring to ( large ecommerce site). It does show the data and the URL that it is on.
-
Thanks for the response.
The rich snippet testing tool has actually been available for a long time, but they've recently made improvements and created a menu category for it (it was previously in the labs/beta section). However, the tool doesn't actually predict the snippets you get in search results, it just verifies the semantic markup and shows an example of what your snippet might look like. At least that's been my experience with it, and I've heard the same from other people around the industry.
Ideally Power Reviews/Bazaar should just update their markup to Schema.org format. Since that's the preferred format agreed upon by the powers that be, I don't understand why they wouldn't, unless their framework is just extremely rigid.
I appreciate your feedback about your client sites running PR. If I understand the (limited) documentation correctly, this shouldn't be a problem unless I was marking up the exact same data with two different formats. Just wanted to see if anyone else had direct experience. So thanks
-
You can use the tool in Webmaster tools ( it's new), that will show you the markup on the page. I haven't noticed that the power reviews interfere with the proper structure of product schema.org on my clients.
The tool will show you the mark up and the results.
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
-
Does using non-https links (not pages) impact or penalise the website rankings?
Hi community, We have couple of pages where we we have given non-https (http) hyperlinks by mistake. They will redirect to http links anyway. Does using these http links on page hurt any rankings? Thansk
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google's stand on LSI keywords?
Hi all, So the keywords which appear while typing some keywords and suggested keywords at the bottom of the search results page are refereed as LSI keywords. I been noticing some of the LSI keywords for years related to our industry and Google now suddenly changed them. I wonder why it would be. I can see competitors are started using those LSI keywords widely, is that the reason Google changed them? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Sub-directory pages must be optimised well?
Hi all, We have help pages as sub-directory which have been linked from our website pages (3 clicks depth). But these pages are not well optimised with minor issues like header tags, image alts, etc...Moreover some of these pages are dead-end pages. Will these things hurt us? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
How long does google take to re-ranking pages in results?
I mean when google dance, the pages in results go up and down frequency every minue, but finally your page will rank in any position in google, what is the time when you get another position in google
Algorithm Updates | | engtamous0 -
How can I check Googles Page Cache ?
Hi I use to have a handy tool in Firefox (Google Toolbar) that was very handy for checking page ranks and what date a page had been cached. For a while with the newer versions of Firefox I cannot seem to locate this useful tool, Can anybody recommend any useful tools for checking the above. Thanks Adam
Algorithm Updates | | AMG1000 -
How long does it take for a new website to start showing in the SERP'S
I launched my website about 6 weeks ago. It was indexed fairly quickly. But it is not showing up in the Google SERP. I did do the on page SEO and followed the best practise's for my website. I have also been checking webmaster tools and it tells me that there is no errors with my site. I also ran it through the seomoz on page seo analyzer and again no real big issues. According to seomoz I had 1 duplicate content issue with my blog posts, which i corrected. I understand it takes some time, but any ideas of how much time? And f.y.i it's a Canadian website. So it should be a lot easier to rank as well. Could my site be caught in the Google 'sandbox effect' ? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Algorithm Updates | | CurtCarroll0 -
"We've processed your reconsideration request for www...." - Could this be good news?
Hey, We recently had a Google Penguin related links warning and I've been going through Google WMT and removing the most offensive links. We have requested resubmission a couple of times and have had the standard response of: "
Algorithm Updates | | ChrisHolgate
Site violates Google's quality guidelines We received a request from a site owner to reconsider your site for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes. We encourage you to make changes to comply with our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results. If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.
" On the 5th September after spending another couple more days removing the most prolific offenders we resubmitted the site again and again got the automated response saying they had received our request. A week later on the 13th September we got a slightly different response of : "
We've processed your reconsideration request We received a request from a site owner to reconsider how we index your site. We've now reviewed your site. When we review a site, we check to see if it's in violation of our Webmaster Guidelines. If we don't find any problems, we'll reconsider our indexing of your site. If your site still doesn't appear in our search results, check our Help Center for steps you can take. " I left it another couple of weeks to see if we'd get a slightly more in depth response however so far there has been nothing. I'll be honest in not being entirely sure what this means. The e-mails says simultaneously 'We've now reviewed your site' (as in past tense) but then continues with "If we don't find any problems" which suggests a future tense. I’m unsure from reading the e-mail whether they have indeed reviewed it (and just not told us the outcome) or whether it’s just a delayed e-mail saying that they have received the reconsideration request. Of course, if I received this e-mail off anyone other than Google I would have thought I was still in the dog house but the fact that it differs from the standard ‘Site violates Google’s quality guidelines’ message leads me to believe that something has changed and they may be happy with the site or at least happier than they were previously. Has anybody else received the latter message and has anybody managed to determine exactly what it means? Cheers guys!0 -
Difference in which pages Google is ranking?
Over the past two weeks I've noticed that Google has decided to change which pages on our site rank for specific keywords. The thing is, this is for keywords that the homepage was already ranking for. Due to our workload, we've made no changes to the site, and I'm not tracking any additional backlinks. Certainly there are no new deep links to these pages. In SEOmoz dashboard (and via tools/manual checking with a proxy) of the 24 terms we have first page ranking for, 9 of them are marked "new to top 50". These are terms we were already ranking for. Google just appears to have switched out the homepage for other pages. I've noticed this across a couple of client sites, too, though none to the extent that I'm seeing on our own. Certainly this isn't a bad thing, as the deeper pages ranking means that they're landing on the content they want first, and I can work to up the conversion rates. It's just caught me by surprise. Anyone else noticing similar changes?
Algorithm Updates | | BedeFahey1