How do you call this kind of result snippets?
-
I was wondering how do you kind this kind result snippet? Structured snippets? Rich Snippets?
-
Hello!
@ThompsonPaul is correct, this is a kind of rich snippet.
Schema.org has some documented microdata markup around nutrition information. The item type is NutritionInformation, and you can utilize properties like "calories," "fatContent," or "caffeineContent."
-
This is most commonly referred to as a Rich Snippet resulting from structured data markup, in my experience, @hartator.
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
-
ECommerce search results to noindex?
Hi, To avoid duplicated content and the possibility of thousands additional pages to an ecommerce website would it be a reasonable solution to have the page as a no-index, would this benefit the site? Thanks **Lantec **
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lantec0 -
DMOZ snippet in SERP
I just added the author and publisher tags to my client's site and posted a dance class announcement on Google + with hashtags. When I did a test search on Google, they were showing up above the Place listings and the description under the title was taken from their DMOZ listing, not from the web site description. This is the first time I have seen this. Has anyone else seen DMOZ descriptions showing up in Google SERPs?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DaveBrown3330 -
Google Not Displaying Rich Snippets
We implemented rich snippets for products some time ago. When viewing our site through a site:xxxx.com on Google, they don't show for every product, despite the fact that they should. I've taken some of the URLs that don't show rich snippets in the SERPs, ran them through Google's testing tool, and they display fine. Not sure what's going wrong here. Any thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Indexing of internal search results: canonicalization or noindex?
Hi Mozzers, First time poster here, enjoying the site and the tools very much. I'm doing SEO for a fairly big ecommerce brand and an issue regarding internal search results has come up. www.example.com/electronics/iphone/5s/ gives an overview of the the model-specific listings. For certain models there are also color listings, but these are not incorporated in the URL structure. Here's what Rand has to say in Inbound Marketing & SEO: Insights From The Moz Blog Search filters are used to narrow an internal search—it could be price, color, features, etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ClassicDriver
Filters are very common on e-commerce sites that sell a wide variety of products. Search filter
URLs look a lot like search sorts, in many cases:
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop
www.example.com/search.php?category=laptop?price=1000
The solution here is similar to the preceding one—don’t index the filters. As long as Google
has a clear path to products, indexing every variant usually causes more harm than good. I believe using a noindex tag is meant here. Let's say you want to point users to an overview of listings for black 5s iphones. The URL is an internal search filter which looks as follows: www.example.com/electronics/apple/iphone/5s?search=black Which you wish to link with the anchor text "black iphone 5s". Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you no-index the black 5s search filters, you lose the equity passed through the link. Whereas if you canonicalize /electronics/apple/iphone/5s you would still leverage the link juice and help you rank for "black iphone 5s". Doesn't it then make more sense to use canonicalization?0 -
Rich snippets showing on some pages but not others
Hi, I have rich snippet mark up showing in serps for some pages but not others. All pages test fine using Googles structured data testing tool. Whats really annoying is that they seem to appear for some pages but not others within the same directory / page format. None of googles troubleshooting suggestions on the issue are a problem i.e. Does your markup follow our usage guidelines? Is your marked-up content hidden from users? Is your markup incorrect or misleading? Is your marked-up content representative of the main content of the page? Have you supplied enough information? Have you only recently updated your content? Does your markup include incorrect nesting? Reviews: Does your review use count instead of vote? There are alot of instances when the same mark up is used twice e.g. on product x page in one directory and on product x page in a different directory (theres no dupe content). I wondered if that could be a reason but there are alot of instances when product x in directory a has the snippet when it doesnt in directory b. There doesnt seem to be an identifiable pattern as to why one page whould show the snippet and not another. Any feedback appreciated. Happy to pm example pages. Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Duplicate site (disaster recovery) being crawled and creating two indexed search results
I have a primary domain, toptable.co.uk, and a disaster recovery site for this primary domain named uk-www.gtm.opentable.com. In the event of a disaster, toptable.co.uk would get CNAMEd (DNS alias) to the .gtm site. Naturally the .gtm disaster recover domian is an exact match to the toptable.co.uk domain. Unfortunately, Google has crawled the uk-www.gtm.opentable site, and it's showing up in search results. In most cases the gtm urls don't get redirected to toptable they actually appear as an entirely separate domain to the user. The strong feeling is that this duplicate content is hurting toptable.co.uk, especially as .gtm.ot is part of the .opentable.com domain which has significant authority. So we need a way of stopping Google from crawling gtm. There seem to be two potential fixes. Which is best for this case? use the robots.txt to block Google from crawling the .gtm site 2) canonicalize the the gtm urls to toptable.co.uk In general Google seems to recommend a canonical change but in this special case it seems robot.txt change could be best. Thanks in advance to the SEOmoz community!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | OpenTable0 -
Search result clicks for one of my posts down significantly
I started receiving a warning warning in google webmaster tools about 2 weeks ago that said "big traffic change for top url". On reading the message i saw "Search results clicks for http://goo.gl/EyhUJ have decreased significantly". When I search google using the keyword "sore breasts" for which that post used to rank at least number 2 on google, I dont see anything. The related post http://goo.gl/vP025 is still ranking well. Can anyone give me an idea of what might have happened? I am totally at sea. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adaeze0