Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Schema.org product offer with a price range, or multiple offers with single prices?
-
I'm implementing Schema.org, (JSON-LD), on an eCommerce site. Each product has a few different variations, and these variations can change the price, (think T-shirts, but blue & white cost $5, red is $5.50, and yellow is $6).
In my Schema.org markup, (using JSON-LD), in each Product's Offer, I could either have a single Offer with a price range, (minPricd: $5, maxPrice $6), or I could add a separate Offer for each variation, each with its own, correct, price set.
Is one of these better than the other? Why? I've been looking at the WooCommerce code and they seem to do the single offer with a price range, but that could be because it's more flexible for a system that's used by millions of people.
-
I have a question about the offerCount item within an AggregateOffer type.
I want to show the "true" price range of every product in our inventory but we don't automatically load them all to the page. Most implementations I have seen that trigger the price range showing in the SERP have the individual offers marked up further down the page as well, but that wouldn't work for us. We show 10 or so out of 100s.
In my mind there are two options here. We can use the true aggregate price of the set and skip tagging up individual offers. Or we can tag up the offers displayed but still show what I am calling the "true" aggregate price. Any opinions on whether Google needs the individual offers tagged up? And any opinions on whether the individual offers tagged up need to "match" the aggregate offer prices?
THANKS
-
Anytime, John, I am happy to help!
-
Thanks Thomas.
AggregateOffer is what I was looking for.
-
Each product can have a few different variations
See Google's https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/product
Aggregate offer properties
An
AggregateOfferis a kind of Offer representing an aggregation of other offers. When marking up aggregate offers within a product, use the following properties of the schema.org AggregateOffer type:Properties lowPriceNumber, required
The lowest price of all offers available. Floating point number.
|
|highPrice|Number, recommended
The highest price of all offers available. Floating point number.
|
|priceCurrency|Text, required
The currency used to describe the product price, in three-letter ISO 4217 format.
|
|offerCount|Number, recommended
The number of offers for the product.
|
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/product
**Just 1 **
Product rich results provide users with information about a specific product, such as its price, availability, and reviewer ratings. The following guidelines apply to product markup:
- Use markup for a specific product, not a category or list of products. For example, “shoes in our shop” is not a specific product. See also our structured data guidelines for multiple entities on the same page.
- Adult-related products are not supported.
- Reviewer’s name needs to be a valid name for a Person or Team For example, "James Smith" or"CNET Reviewers." By contrast, "50% off on Black Friday" is invalid.
To include product information in Image Search, follow these guidelines for required markup:
-
To show your product information in the rich image viewer: Include the
name,image,price, andpriceCurrencyproperties. Alternatively, instead ofpriceandpriceCurrency, you can include any four properties and excludeprice. -
To show your product information in the Related Items feature: Include the
name,image,price,priceCurrency, andavailabilityproperties. -
Be careful that the text you use is the same text that is on the page
-
https://www.distilled.net/resources/understanding-and-implementing-json-ld/
-
http://www.remicorson.com/add-woocommerce-product-to-cart-from-url-using-products-sku/
/*
- Remove the default WooCommerce 3 JSON/LD structured data format
*/
function remove_output_structured_data() {
remove_action( 'wp_footer', array( WC()->structured_data, 'output_structured_data' ), 10 ); // Frontend pages
remove_action( 'woocommerce_email_order_details', array( WC()->structured_data, 'output_email_structured_data' ), 30 ); // Emails
}
add_action( 'init', 'remove_output_structured_data' );
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
-
When should a variant be a variant and when should it be a separate product from an SEO POV?
Hi all, We are looking at changing our current e-commerce store to a new platform and in doing so thinking of making some changes to how we list products in sub-categories. We have seen related questions asking about splitting a single product into multiple products to rank for different terms, but we are wondering about combining multiple products into a single product page? The examples we have seen have been about fashion items with variants of colour and size. However, the products we sell have variances that change the appearance, dimensions and technical specification, so we would like to ask the MOZ community if combining products with these variances would still be deemed good practice? We sell wood burning stoves and a good example of a product that we are considering combining is the Scan 85 stove, which is available in eight different configurations: 85-1, 85-2, 85-3 etc. Scan themselves refer to each version as a separate product and they are bought, stocked and sold as separate products. Wood burning stoves like this typically have a firebox in the centre and then design options that can change the top, side, base, door, colour and fuel. In this example, the firebox is the Scan 85 and the variation is the last number, each of which corresponds to a different design option changing both the appearance and dimensions (see attached image). We have them listed as eight different products on our current site, one for each version. Primarily because each option has its own name (albeit 1-digit difference) which when we created the pages we thought that more pages would present us with more ranking opportunity. However, we have since learnt that because these eight pages are all so similar and it is difficult to write unique content about each product (with the 85-1 and 85-2 the only difference between the models are the black trim on the 85-1 and the silver trim on 85-2). Especially as when talking about the firebox itself, how well the fire burns, how controllable it is etc, will be the same for all versions. Likewise, earning backlinks to eight separate pages is also very difficult. Exploring this lead, us to the question, when is a variant a variant and when is it a separate product? Are there hard and fast rules for what defines variants and products? Or does it simply vary from industry to industry product to product, and if so should we be looking at it from a UX or SEO POV, when making that decision? Our hope is that if we combine these eight products into a single high-quality page, it will present us with a greater ranking opportunity for that one page over eight individual pages. We also hope that in doing so will allow us to create a more intuitive UX on a single page with a unique description, more reviews focused on one page and an explanation of the options available, all of which should lead to more conversions. Finally, by creating a better UX and unique detailed description we hope that there is a higher chance of us earning product level backlinks then we do with eight lower quality pages. One of the issues in creating a single product page for all the variants is the sub-category/results pages, as we would be removing eight simple products and replacing them with one complex product. We have questions over how this would work from a filter/facet level whereby when you apply a filter there is an expectation that the image shown will match the criteria, so if we filter for stoves with a silver trim for example, there is an expectation to only see stoves that have a silver trim in the results. When you have separate product pages you have separate listings which makes this easier to only bring back the models matching the criteria. However, when you have a single page this is more complex as you will need a default image for non-filtered results and then the ability to assign an image to lots of different attributes so that the correct image is always shown that matches the criteria selected. All of which we have been assured is do-able but adds an extra level of complexity to the process from an admin side. The alternative to doing this would be to create eight simple/child products and link them to one configurable/parent product. We could them list the simple products into the results pages and have them all linking back to the main configurable product which could load with the options of the simple product that was selected. From an SEO POV this brings in some more work, redirecting each page to the parent, but ultimately this could provide a better UX and might be the better solution. Has anyone got any experience in doing either of these options before? Both options above with affect the number of products we have available, so does the number of products in a sub-category effect the ability for that category page to rank? We currently have around 500 products in our wood burning stoves category, with perhaps an additional 300 to add. If we go down the combining into a single product page route this will reduce the number of products by around a third. If we keep all the simple/child products, then this will stay around the same. So, have we missed something obvious? Is there a glaring issue that we have overlooked from an SEO point of view as well as from the customer experience? We would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks, Reece scan85-1.jpg
Technical SEO | | fireproductsuk0 -
Indexing product attributes in sitemap
Hey Mozzers! I'm battling a few questions about the sitemap for my ecommerce store. Could you help me out? Is it necessary to include your product attributes in the sitemap? I'm not sure why it would matter to have a sitemap that lists everything in the color cherry. Also, if the attributes were included in the sitemap, would that count as duplicate content for the same products to show up in multiple attributes? Is there any benefit to submitting the sitemaps individually? For example, submitting /product-sitemap.xml, /product_brand-sitemap.xml versus just /sitemap.xml? Any other best practices for managing my ecommerce sitemap, or great resources, would be very helpful. Thank you! a1vUz
Technical SEO | | localwork0 -
Keyword variations on a single page
I have done the research and have compiled a list of a little over 100 keywords that are highly connected to our industry. I have used the metrics to rank those keywords and have given the top 50 of them a ranking. My intention is to use them on my site and make sure that all of my pages have a keyword focus. In doing this, I am running into some challenges. Any insight would be helpful. 1. There are numerous keywords that have simple variations in them. I am trying to figure out if each variation needs it's own page. I have read articles (here on moz) that say that one page can rank for several keywords, and other articles that say that a simple variation can need it's own page. Not sure what to do here. Below is an example of what I mean. (examples: "my long tail keyword" , "my long tail" , "my long" , "long tail" , "long tail keyword" , "keyword long tail") 2. Will it help to create a page for each one of the 50 or even the full 100? I have the opportunity to use blogs and FAQ's to assist with content creation. 3. Since my brand ranks well and is obviously tied highly into my site, do I worry about including brand terms in my keyword focus or should I just focus on those search terms?
Technical SEO | | Smart_Start0 -
Determining When to Break a Page Into Multiple Pages?
Suppose you have a page on your site that is a couple thousand words long. How would you determine when to split the page into two and are there any SEO advantages to doing this like being more focused on a specific topic. I noticed the Beginner's Guide to SEO is split into several pages, although it would concentrate the link juice if it was all on one page. Suppose you have a lot of comments. Is it better to move comments to a second page at a certain point? Sometimes the comments are not super focused on the topic of the page compared to the main text.
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs1 -
Switching from a .org to .io (301 domain redirect)
I'm considering switching my main site from a .org to .io address; the .org is an exact match domain which helped to kickstart it a few years ago and now has about 50% repeat visitors, but was thrown off the Apple affiliation program for trademark infringement. I've found and purchased a nice (non-infringing) .io domain, and I've read the advice here on how to properly 301 the old domain; but my question is - does it matter that it's .io? Is this going to significantly hurt my rankings, even when everything has been 301'd properly? Another thought I had is that I may actually come out better off in the long run, what with Google penalties being applied to exact match domains. Is this a ranking suicide? If so, I'm tempted to leave it as is; even without the affiliation, it's making a good amount every month in ad fees that I don't want to disrupt. Thanks all!
Technical SEO | | w0lfiesmithUK0 -
Schema.org how long does it take?
Since 5 days ago I changed my html template in my ecommerce to comply with schema.org for products. How long does it take to be seen on google, our keyword 4700DN, its one that appears in the top 10 results, but it still doesnt show it with schema.org (price+starts+ratings) What should I do? http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?view=cse&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theprinterdepo.com%2Fhp-color-laser-4700dn-printer-q7493a
Technical SEO | | levalencia10 -
How should I structure a site with multiple addresses to optimize for local search??
Here's the setup: We have a website, www.laptopmd.com, and we're ranking quite well in our geographic target area. The site is chock-full of local keywords, has the address properly marked up, html5 and schema.org compliant, near the top of the page, etc. It's all working quite well, but we're looking to expand to two more locations, and we're terrified that adding more addresses and playing with our current set-up will wreak havoc with our local search results, which we quite frankly currently rock. My question is 1)when it comes time to doing sub-pages for the new locations, should we strip the location information from the main site and put up local pages for each location in subfolders? 1a) should we use subdomains instead of subfolders to keep Google from becoming confused? Should we consider simply starting identically branded pages for the individual locations and hope that exact-match location-based urls will make up for the hit for duplicate content and will overcome the difficulty of building a brand from multiple pages? I've tried to look for examples of businesses that have tried to do what we're doing, but all the advice has been about organic search, which i already have the answer to. I haven't been able to really find a good example of a small business with multiple locations AND good rankings for each location. Should this serve as a warning to me?
Technical SEO | | LMDNYC0 -
How to 301 multiple domain names to a single domain
Hey, I tried to find and answer to this seemingly simple question, but no luck. So, I have one domain name with a website attached to it. I also registered all the other domain names that are similar to it or have different extensions - I want to redirect all the other domain names to my one main domain name without getting penalised by the big G. It looks like this: www.mainsite.com - this is my main domain I also have www.mainsite.com.au, www.mainsite.org, and www.mainsite.org.au which I all want to just redirect to www.mainsite.com I have been told that the best way to do this is a 301 redirect, but to do that you need to make a CNAME for all the other domains that points to www.mainsite.com. My problem is that I cannot seem to create a CNAME record for http://mainsite.com - I have it working for http://www.mainsite.com but not the non www record. What should I be doing differently? Is it just my DNS provider is useless? Thanks, Anthony
Technical SEO | | Grenadi0