Does anyone know how to fix this structured data error on search console? Invalid value in field "itemtype"
-
I'm getting the same structured data error on search console form most of my websites, Invalid value in field "itemtype"
I take off all the structured data but still having this problem, according to Search console is a syntax problem but I can't find what is causing this.
Any guess, suggestion or solution for this?
-
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
As I say before I'm having this problem even when I take off all the structure data from tag manager. Not sure what is generating that schema. Any ideas?
Regards,
-
Hi,
Thanks for your answer, but I'm having the problem on most of my websites, even before I put some JSON schema with tag manager. I tried to disallowing all the schema from the tag manager and still happening the same. All these sites are on WordPress I'm starting to think tath there is a problem on the code or something.
You can have a look on the page, https://alexanders.co.nz/ please let me know if you have any suggestions.
I run a test on https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool and is highlighting this problem, but as I say before even when I took out all the schema from tag manager so I'm not sure what is generating that code or schema.
-
Hi,
Have you incorporated structured data into your website using html code (json, schema, etc)?
Maybe there is some data not completed.
A greeting
-
Hi,
Are you able to provide a link to the page?
From experience it's placing the wrong schema together which causes it to not validate. Search console is usually 3 days behind in terms of collecting data so to sort it out immediately test the page through here => https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool
If after all this and your'e still having problems, go check out a website that serves up similar content and check how they've marked up their page.
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 anyone know of a Google update in the past few days?
Have seen a fairly substantial drop in Google search console, I'm still looking into it comparing things, but does anyone know if there's been a Google updates within the past few days? Or has anyone else noticed anything? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Does the order matter for a rel="alternate" tag
Hi! We just launched our new mobile site and I am trying to get the rel="alternate" tags put on the desktop site. The specs had the tags formatted like this: They ended up like this: My developer is telling me the order does not matter. Can anyone confirm? Does the order matter? Thank You!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | shop.nordstrom0 -
New site, new URL, lots of custom content. Load it all or "trickle" it over time?
New site, new URL, lots of custom content. Load it all or "trickle" it over time? Would it make a difference in terms of ranking the site? Interested in your thoughts. Thanks! BBuck!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BBuck0 -
Google's Stance on "Hidden" Content
Hi, I'm aware Google doesn't care if you have helpful content you can hide/unhide by user interaction. I am also aware that Google frowns upon hiding content from the user for SEO purposes. We're not considering anything similar to this. The issue is, we will be displaying only a part of our content to the user at a time. We'll load 3 results on each page initially. These first 3 results are static, meaning on each initial page load/refresh, the same 3 results will display. However, we'll have a "Show Next 3" button which replaces the initial results with the next 3 results. This content will be preloaded in the source code so Google will know about it. I feel like Google shouldn't have an issue with this since we're allowing the user action to cycle through all results. But I'm curious, is it an issue that the user action does NOT allow them to see all results on the page at once? I am leaning towards no, this doesn't matter, but would like some input if possible. Thanks a lot!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kirmeliux0 -
Dealing with Redirects and iFrames - getting "product login" pages to rank
One of our most popular products has a very authoritative product page, which is great for marketing purposes, but not so much for current users. When current users search for "product x login" or "product x sign in", instead of getting to the login page, they see the product page - it adds a couple of clicks to their experience, which is not what we want. One of the problems is that the actual login page has barely any content, and the content that it does carry is wrapped around <iframes>. Due to political and security reasons, the web team is reluctant to make any changes to the page, and one of their arguments is that the login page actually ranks #1 for a few other products (at our company, the majority of logins originate from the same domain). </iframes> To add to the challenge - queries that do return the login page as #1 result (for some of our other products) actually do not reference the sign-in domain, but our old domain, which is now a 301 redirect to the sign-in domain. To make that clear - **Google is displaying the origin domain in SERPs, instead of displaying the destination domain. ** The question is - how do we get this popular product's login page to rank higher than the product page for "login" / "sign in" queries? I'm not even sure where we should point links to at this point - the actual sign in domain or the origin domain? I have the redirect chains and domain authority for all of the pages involved, including a few of our major competitors (who follow the same login format), and will be happy to share it privately with a Moz expert. I'd prefer not to make any more information publicly available, so please reach out via private message if you think you can help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | leosaraceni0 -
How do I fix item warnings? Invalid URL in attribute: image_link
Today, I have submitted Test Data Feed on Google merchant center for one Ecommerce website. (http://www.techcart.co.uk) But, I can see item warnings for invalide URL in attribute: image_link. You can find out attachment to know more about it. My website contain image path as follow. http://images.icecat.biz/img/norm/high/101859-8677.jpg I have read detail guidelines for Google merchant center and come to know as follow. Product feed must contain image link with domain name like follow. http://images.vistastores.com/product/large/63241/Professional-Air-Grid-Managers-Office-Chair-with-Black-Mesh-Seat.jpg But, I have found approved merchants and products in Google shopping which does not contain image path with domain name. You can check following path to know more about it. http://common1.csnimages.com/lf/50/hash/19276/6218082/1/Tozai-Sun-Mirror-on-Pedestal.jpg https://www.google.com/shopping/product/14637277284367613483 So, How do I fix item warnings regarding Invalid URL in attribute: image_link? I need urgent help on this issue. Image_Link_Issue_Test_Data_Feed_TechCart.png?view=1∂=4
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CommercePundit0 -
Can I reduce number of on page links by just adding "no follow" tags to duplicate links
Our site works on templates and we essentially have a link pointing to the same place 3 times on most pages. The links are images not text. We are over 100 links on our on page attributes, and ranking fairly well for key SERPS our core pages are optimized for. I am thinking I should engage in some on-page link juice sculpting and add some "no follow" tags to 2 of the 3 repeated links. Although that being said the Moz's on page optimizer is not saying I have link cannibalization. Any thoughts guys? Hope this scenario makes sense.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robertrRSwalters0 -
Why my site is "STILL" violating the Google quality guidelines?
Hello, I had a site with two topics: Fashion & Technology. Due to the Panda Update I decided to change some things and one of those things was the separation of these two topics. So, on June 21, I redirected (301) all the Fashion pages to a new domain. The new domain performed well the first three days, but the rankings dropped later. Now, even the site doesn't rank for its own name. So, I thought the website was penalized for any reason, and I sent a reconsideration to Google. In fact, five days later, Google confirmed that my site is "still violating the quality guidelines". I don't understand. My original site was never penalized and the content is the same. And now when it is installed on the new domain becomes penalized just a few days later? Is this penalization only a sandbox for the new domain? Or just until the old URLs disappear from the index (due to the 301 redirect)? Maybe Google thinks my new site is duplicating my old site? Or just is a temporal prevention with new domains after a redirection in order to avoid spammers? Maybe this is not a real penalization and I only need a little patience? Or do you think my site is really violating the quality guidelines? (The domain is http://www.newclothing.co/) The original domain where the fashion section was installed before is http://www.myddnetwork.com/ (As you can see it is now a tech blog without fashion sections) The 301 redirect are working well. One example of redirected URLs: http://www.myddnetwork.com/clothing-shoes-accessories/ (this is the homepage, but each page was redirected to its corresponding URL in the new domain). I appreciate any advice. Basically my fashion pages have dropped totally. Both, the new and old URLs are not ranking. 😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | omarinho0
