Structured Data and Google Rich Cards for products
-
It appears Google is moving towards the Rich Cards JSON-LD for all data. https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/05/introducing-rich-cards.html
However on an ecommerce site when I have schema.org microdata structured data inline for a product and then I add the JSON-LD structured data Google treats that as two products on the page even though they are the same. To make the matter more confusing Bing doesn't appear to support JSON-LD.
I can go back to the inline structured data only, but that would mean when Rich Cards for products eventually come I won't be ready. What do you recommend I do for long term seo, go back to the old or press forward with JSON-LD?
-
Thanks for the feedback Martijn. We have decided to go the JSON-LD as you did. Having both markups on the page caused duplicate products in Google Search Console. We worried that might have negative effects.
-
Hi Keith,
In this case I would say it really depends on how much traffic Bing is sending your way. In our case that was so low that we decided to remove the inline Schema.org implementation and go full in on JSON-LD although we knew Bing wasn't supporting it. As we see more initiatives move with JSON-LD I can't imagine that Bing also won't move that way.
Worst case you could add the content twice with both inline and JSON-LD, I can't prove it but for now I would say that it definitely wouldn't cause duplicate content.
Hope that helps, Martijn!
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
-
Is my content being fully read by Google?
Hi mozzers, I wanted to ask you a quick question regarding Google's crawlability of webpages. We just launched a series of content pieces but I believe there's an issue.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TyEl
Based on what I am seeing when I inspect the URL it looks like Google is only able to see a few titles and internal links. For instance, when I inspect one of the URLs on GSC this is the screenshot I am seeing: image.pngWhen I perform the "cache:" I barely see any content**:** image.pngVS one of our blog post image.png Would you agree with me there's a problem here? Is this related to the heavy use of JS? If so somehow I wasn't able to detect this on any of the crawling tools? Thanks!0 -
Getting Google to index our sitemap
Hi, We have a sitemap on AWS that is retrievable via a url that looks like ours http://sitemap.shipindex.org/sitemap.xml. We have notified Google it exists and it found our 700k urls (we are a database of ship citations with unique urls). However, it will not index them. It has been weeks and nothing. The weird part is that it did do some of them before, it said so, about 26k. Then it said 0. Now that I have redone the sitemap, I can't get google to look at it and I have no idea why. This is really important to us, as we want not just general keywords to find our front page, but we also want specific ship names to show links to us in results. Does anyone have any clues as to how to get Google's attention and index our sitemap? Or even just crawl more of our site? It has done 35k pages crawling, but stopped.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shipindex0 -
Structured data: Product vs auto rental schema?
Hi mozzers, If you are rental company, is it useful to add both the product and auto rental schemas or auto rental schema on its own should just be enough? Finally, on the auto rental schema, you have to add an address. Could we just add a city instead of an entire address and avoid receiving a warning message on the strutured data testing tool? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ty19860 -
Google is not honoring my descriptions
I finally got our title tags honored and now Google is just making the descriptions whatever it wants. This is happening on pretty much every one of our pages. An example: http://www.sqlsentry.com/products/plan-explorer/sql-server-query-view SERPS = SQL Server MVP Aaron Bertrand shares a demo kit for Plan Explorer to give you better insight into the advantages of the tool, and to help you share its virtues ... Description tag = SQL Sentry Plan Explorer is a free query plan analysis tool that will allow you to find the most expensive operators by CPU, I/O, or both. I can see the description tag when I view source so I know that it is pulling it from the table correctly. What can I do to fix this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Sika220 -
URL Structure
URL i have to use targeted keyword on all sub page domain or not for example now i am using url like this format fundingtype.html litigation-funding.html legal-funding.html financingservices.html process.html and if i re-write all url with targated keyword like this format lawsuit-loans-fundingtype.html lawsuit-loans-litigation-funding.html lawsuit-loans-legal-funding.html lawsuit-loans-financingservices.html lawsuit-loans-process.html so which type URL are more effective for best SEO ??
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JulieWhite0 -
To list or not to list? Products that contain basic info only, yet show off product depth...
Some of our products on our site only have 40 characters of description... each item/category is it's own unique web page with basic info like Brand, Model, What it is, Price, & Quantity in stock. For searchers knowing what they want, they can quickly find us via the basic info & see that we have it in stock. But for someone surfing our site, it's not all that attractive or informative as you are scrolling down the category list. Collecting the picture & info can be a slow and time consuming process, but something we'd love to be all caught up on one day. Would it be wiser to take these pages off, or keep them on until they are fully updated with pic & more detail? (My thought is that even though they don't contain a lot of individual detail depth, they still add a substantial quantity of basic related content to the category page that they reside in. This basic info on these items are also given a chance to burn into the web search engines over a longer period of time. As time goes by and their content is improved, they will get re-crawled/re-indexed with their new information depth. Also, even though they don't look all that pretty, it shows off our product depth... if we only listed the items that looked spectacular, then a lot of our categories would only contain a wimpy 3 out of 30 items that we actually have for sale. That feels like a huge misrepresentation of how much selection we actually have to offer. But perhaps this is wrong thinking?) Thanks, Kevin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kevin_McLeish0 -
Number of images on Google?
Hello here, In the past I was able to find out pretty easily how many images from my website are indexed by Google and inside the Google image search index. But as today looks like Google is not giving you any numbers, it just lists the indexed images. I use the advanced image search, by defining my domain name for the "site or domain" field: http://www.google.com/advanced_image_search and then Google returns all the images coming from my website. Is there any way to know the actual number of images indexed? Any ideas are very welcome! Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau1 -
Google, Links and Javascript
So today I was taking a look at http://www.seomoz.org/top500 page and saw that the AddThis page is currently at the position 19. I think the main reason for that is because their plugin create, through javascript, linkbacks to their page where their share buttons reside. So any page with AddThis installed would easily have 4/5 linbacks to their site, creating that huge amount of linkbacks they have. Ok, that pretty much shows that Google doesn´t care if the link is created in the HTML (on the backend) or through Javascript (frontend). But heres the catch. If someones create a free plugin for wordpress/drupal or any other huge cms platform out there with a feature that linkbacks to the page of the creator of the plugin (thats pretty common, I know) but instead of inserting the link in the plugin source code they put it somewhere else, wich then is loaded with a javascript code (exactly how AddThis works). This would allow the owner of the plugin to change the link showed at anytime he wants. The main reason for that would be, dont know, an URL address update for his blog or businness or something. However that could easily be used to link to whatever tha hell the owner of the plugin wants to. What your thoughts about this, I think this could be easily classified as White or Black hat depending on what the owners do. However, would google think the same way about it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bemcapaz0
