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 Markup Validator vs. Rich Results Test
-
I am working on a schema markup project. When I test the schema code in the Schema Markup Validator, everything looks fine, no errors detected. However, when I test it in the Rich Results Test, a few errors come back.
What is the difference between these two tests? Should I trust one over the other? -
@Collegis_Education
Step-1
The Schema Markup Validator and the Rich Results Test are two distinct tools that serve different purposes in the context of schema markup. The Schema Markup Validator primarily focuses on validating the syntactical correctness of your schema code. It checks if your markup follows the structured data guidelines and is free from any syntax errors. This tool is useful during the initial stages of schema implementation to ensure that your code aligns with the schema.org specifications.Step-2
The Role of Rich Results Test
On the other hand, the Rich Results Test is designed to provide insights into how Google interprets your schema markup and whether it generates rich results in the search engine. It simulates Google's search results and displays how your content may appear as a rich result. This tool not only checks for syntactical correctness but also evaluates how well your schema markup aligns with Google's guidelines for generating enhanced search results. Therefore, it focuses more on the practical impact of your schema markup on search engine results.Step-3
Trusting the Results
Both tools are valuable in their own right. During the implementation phase, it's crucial to use the Schema Markup Validator to ensure your code's correctness. However, for a comprehensive understanding of how your schema markup will perform in search results, the Rich Results Test provides a more dynamic analysis. Trusting one over the other depends on your specific goals – the Schema Markup Validator for code validation and the Rich Results Test for evaluating the potential impact on search results. To illustrate, in my recent post I utilized schema markup, and both tools played a role in ensuring its accuracy and potential visibility in rich results. -
@Collegis_Education said in Schema Markup Validator vs. Rich Results Test:
I am working on a schema markup project. When I test the schema code in the Schema Markup Validator, everything looks fine, no errors detected. However, when I test it in the Rich Results Test, a few errors come back.
What is the difference between these two tests? Should I trust one over the other?When working with schema markup, it's important to understand the purpose of different testing tools and what aspects of your markup they're evaluating.
Schema Markup Validator (formerly known as Structured Data Testing Tool):
This tool focuses on checking the syntax and vocabulary of your schema markup against Schema.org standards.
It ensures that your markup is logically structured and semantically correct.
It does not necessarily check for compliance with Google's guidelines for rich snippets or rich results.
Rich Results Test:This tool is provided by Google and specifically checks for compatibility with Google Search's rich results.
It not only checks the validity of the schema markup but also whether it meets the specific guidelines and requirements set by Google to display rich results in its search engine.
It simulates how your page might be processed by Google Search and whether your schema can generate rich results.
The difference between the two tests lies in their scope. The Schema Markup Validator checks for general correctness according to Schema.org, which is broader and platform-agnostic. The Rich Results Test is more specific and checks for compatibility with Google's search features. I have used schema for internet packaging website and I found usful.Should you trust one over the other? It depends on your goals:
If you want to ensure your markup is correct according to Schema.org and potentially useful for a variety of search engines and platforms, the Schema Markup Validator is the way to go.
If your primary concern is how your markup will perform on Google Search and you're looking to leverage Google's rich results, then the Rich Results Test is more pertinent.
Ideally, your markup should pass both tests. It should be correctly structured according to Schema.org standards (which you can ensure using the Schema Markup Validator), and it should also be optimized for Google's rich results (which you can check using the Rich Results Test). If you're encountering errors in the Rich Results Test, it's likely because your schema markup doesn't meet some of Google's rich result guidelines, and you should adjust your markup accordingly. -
The Schema Markup Validator checks the syntax and structure of your schema code, ensuring it aligns with schema.org specifications. It's crucial for catching initial errors. On the other hand, the Rich Results Test specifically focuses on how your schema markup qualifies for rich results in Google Search, providing insights into how it appears in search results. For Google integration and visual representation, prefer the Rich Results Test. Use both tools together to ensure technical correctness and effective integration with Google's search algorithms.
-
The Schema Markup Validator primarily checks the technical correctness and adherence to schema.org standards of your structured data markup. It ensures that your markup is syntactically correct and follows the specified schema guidelines.
On the other hand, the Rich Results Test goes beyond syntax validation. It assesses how well your page qualifies for rich results (enhanced search results) in Google's search listings. This includes checking if your markup meets the specific requirements for generating rich snippets, knowledge panels, or other enhanced search features.
In essence, while the Schema Markup Validator focuses on the technical aspects of your markup, the Rich Results Test evaluates its potential impact on search results appearance. Both tools are valuable, and it's recommended to use them in conjunction to ensure comprehensive testing of your schema markup. If the Rich Results Test identifies errors, addressing them can enhance your chances of achieving rich results in Google's search listings.
-
@Hazellucy I will create the different Schemas for my movies related website. I will use the Rich result test tool that is work for me. But that is depend on you which one you want to use for creating schema code. Rich result is google official tool. So I recommend you to use this one.
-
I will create schemas for my movie related website. I will create different type of schema like FAQs and content schema and I will use more rich result test tool that is work for me.
-
This post is deleted! -
The primary difference between the Schema Markup Validator and the Rich Results Test from Google is that the Rich Result test is restricted to testing only the markup of structured data that's used in Google's results for the search. However, the Schema.org markup validation is more intended for "general purposes" and is geared towards debugging various other types of structured data in addition to the ones that Google supports.
Currently Google supports only a limited number of Schema Markups that includes:
Article, Breadcrumb, Carousel, Course, COVID-19 Announcements, Dataset, Employer, Aggregate Rating, Estimated Salary, Event, Fast Check, FAQ, Home Activities, How-To, Image License, Job Posting, Job Training, Local Business, Logo, Math Solvers, Movie, Practice Problems, Product, Q&A, Recipe, Review Snippet, Sitelinks, Search Box, Software App, Speakable, Video, Subscription and Paywalled Content, Article / Blog Posting, etc.This means that the markup validator may be showing that there are no issues with the way your schema is written syntactically, but Google may still have an issue generating a particular type of search result based on that schema.
Both of the tools can still be used for better SEO and achieving featured results in the SERPs. The Rich Result Testing tool doesn’t offer the code editing option though, so the Schema Markup Validator tool can come in handy for troubleshooting any Schema markup issues.
There are a number of Data Types supported by the Google Rich Result Testing Tool for existing Schema Libraries supported by Google and those Data Types can be used when testing different types of the Schema markup through Schema Markup validator tool.
-
@kavikardos thank you, that's helpful!
-
Hey @collegis_education! The primary difference between the two tools is that the Rich Results Test shows what types of Google results can be generated from your markup, whereas the schema markup validator offers generic schema validation. So the markup validator may be showing that there are no issues with the way your schema is written syntactically, but Google may still have an issue generating a particular type of search result based on that schema.
Be sure to take a close look at the errors the Rich Results Test is throwing, as some are more like warnings - not every aspect of the schema is necessary in order for Google to generate a rich result, but obviously if there's a particular piece of the markup that's missing (i.e. In-Stock status), it won't be included in that result.
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
-
Unsolved Duplicate LocalBusiness Schema Markup
Hello! I've been having a hard time finding an answer to this specific question so I figured I'd drop it here. I always add custom LocalBusiness markup to clients' homepages, but sometimes the client's website provider will include their own automated LocalBusiness markup. The codes I create often include more information. Assuming the website provider is unwilling to remove their markup, is it a bad idea to include my code as well? It seems like it could potentially be read as spammy by Google. Do the pros of having more detailed markup outweigh that potential negative impact?
Local Website Optimization | | GoogleAlgoServant0 -
Schema Markup Warning "Missing field "url" (optional)"
Hello Moz Team, I hope everyone is doing well & good, I need bit help regarding Schema Markup, I am facing issue in my schema markup specifically with my blog posts, In my majority of the posts I find error "Missing field "url" (optional)"
Technical SEO | | JoeySolicitor
As this schema is generated by Yoast plugin, I haven't applied any custom steps. Recently I published a post https://dailycontributors.com/kisscartoon-alternatives-and-complete-review/ and I tested it at two platforms of schema test 1, Validator.Schema.org
2. Search.google.com/test/rich-results So the validator generate results as follows and shows no error
Schema without error.PNG It shows no error But where as Schema with error.PNG in search central results it gives me a warning "Missing field "url" (optional)". So is this really be going to issue for my ranking ? Please help thanks!6 -
Looking for live web examples of Medical schema
Has anyone seen a hospital system or medical clinic properly employ schema markup to their sites? This seems like very new territory, and we want to do it right by our client. Are there any best practices I need to look out for?
Web Design | | Madgenius3 -
Absolute vs. Relative Canonical Links
Hi Moz Community, I have a client using relative links for their canonicals (vs. absolute) Google appears to be following this just fine, but bing, etc. are still sending organic traffic to the non-canonical links. It's a drupal setup. Anyone have advice? Should I recommend that all canonical links be absolute? They are strapped for resources, so this would be a PITA if it won't make a difference. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SimpleSearch1 -
Should I use https schema markup after http-https migration?
Dear Moz community, Noticed that several groups of websites after HTTP -> HTTPS migration update their schema markup from, example : {
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | admiral99
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "http://www.your-site.com"
} becomes {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "WebSite",
"name": "Your WebSite Name",
"alternateName": "An alternative name for your WebSite",
"url": "https://www.example.com"
} Interesting to know, because Moz website is on https protocol but uses http version of markup. Looking forward for answers 🙂0 -
Avoiding Duplicate Content with Used Car Listings Database: Robots.txt vs Noindex vs Hash URLs (Help!)
Hi Guys, We have developed a plugin that allows us to display used vehicle listings from a centralized, third-party database. The functionality works similar to autotrader.com or cargurus.com, and there are two primary components: 1. Vehicle Listings Pages: this is the page where the user can use various filters to narrow the vehicle listings to find the vehicle they want.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | browndoginteractive
2. Vehicle Details Pages: this is the page where the user actually views the details about said vehicle. It is served up via Ajax, in a dialog box on the Vehicle Listings Pages. Example functionality: http://screencast.com/t/kArKm4tBo The Vehicle Listings pages (#1), we do want indexed and to rank. These pages have additional content besides the vehicle listings themselves, and those results are randomized or sliced/diced in different and unique ways. They're also updated twice per day. We do not want to index #2, the Vehicle Details pages, as these pages appear and disappear all of the time, based on dealer inventory, and don't have much value in the SERPs. Additionally, other sites such as autotrader.com, Yahoo Autos, and others draw from this same database, so we're worried about duplicate content. For instance, entering a snippet of dealer-provided content for one specific listing that Google indexed yielded 8,200+ results: Example Google query. We did not originally think that Google would even be able to index these pages, as they are served up via Ajax. However, it seems we were wrong, as Google has already begun indexing them. Not only is duplicate content an issue, but these pages are not meant for visitors to navigate to directly! If a user were to navigate to the url directly, from the SERPs, they would see a page that isn't styled right. Now we have to determine the right solution to keep these pages out of the index: robots.txt, noindex meta tags, or hash (#) internal links. Robots.txt Advantages: Super easy to implement Conserves crawl budget for large sites Ensures crawler doesn't get stuck. After all, if our website only has 500 pages that we really want indexed and ranked, and vehicle details pages constitute another 1,000,000,000 pages, it doesn't seem to make sense to make Googlebot crawl all of those pages. Robots.txt Disadvantages: Doesn't prevent pages from being indexed, as we've seen, probably because there are internal links to these pages. We could nofollow these internal links, thereby minimizing indexation, but this would lead to each 10-25 noindex internal links on each Vehicle Listings page (will Google think we're pagerank sculpting?) Noindex Advantages: Does prevent vehicle details pages from being indexed Allows ALL pages to be crawled (advantage?) Noindex Disadvantages: Difficult to implement (vehicle details pages are served using ajax, so they have no tag. Solution would have to involve X-Robots-Tag HTTP header and Apache, sending a noindex tag based on querystring variables, similar to this stackoverflow solution. This means the plugin functionality is no longer self-contained, and some hosts may not allow these types of Apache rewrites (as I understand it) Forces (or rather allows) Googlebot to crawl hundreds of thousands of noindex pages. I say "force" because of the crawl budget required. Crawler could get stuck/lost in so many pages, and my not like crawling a site with 1,000,000,000 pages, 99.9% of which are noindexed. Cannot be used in conjunction with robots.txt. After all, crawler never reads noindex meta tag if blocked by robots.txt Hash (#) URL Advantages: By using for links on Vehicle Listing pages to Vehicle Details pages (such as "Contact Seller" buttons), coupled with Javascript, crawler won't be able to follow/crawl these links. Best of both worlds: crawl budget isn't overtaxed by thousands of noindex pages, and internal links used to index robots.txt-disallowed pages are gone. Accomplishes same thing as "nofollowing" these links, but without looking like pagerank sculpting (?) Does not require complex Apache stuff Hash (#) URL Disdvantages: Is Google suspicious of sites with (some) internal links structured like this, since they can't crawl/follow them? Initially, we implemented robots.txt--the "sledgehammer solution." We figured that we'd have a happier crawler this way, as it wouldn't have to crawl zillions of partially duplicate vehicle details pages, and we wanted it to be like these pages didn't even exist. However, Google seems to be indexing many of these pages anyway, probably based on internal links pointing to them. We could nofollow the links pointing to these pages, but we don't want it to look like we're pagerank sculpting or something like that. If we implement noindex on these pages (and doing so is a difficult task itself), then we will be certain these pages aren't indexed. However, to do so we will have to remove the robots.txt disallowal, in order to let the crawler read the noindex tag on these pages. Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me to make googlebot crawl zillions of vehicle details pages, all of which are noindexed, and it could easily get stuck/lost/etc. It seems like a waste of resources, and in some shadowy way bad for SEO. My developers are pushing for the third solution: using the hash URLs. This works on all hosts and keeps all functionality in the plugin self-contained (unlike noindex), and conserves crawl budget while keeping vehicle details page out of the index (unlike robots.txt). But I don't want Google to slap us 6-12 months from now because it doesn't like links like these (). Any thoughts or advice you guys have would be hugely appreciated, as I've been going in circles, circles, circles on this for a couple of days now. Also, I can provide a test site URL if you'd like to see the functionality in action.0 -
Removing Content 301 vs 410 question
Hello, I was hoping to get the SEOmoz community’s advice on how to remove content most effectively from a large website. I just read a very thought-provoking thread in which Dr. Pete and Kerry22 answered a question about how to cut content in order to recover from Panda. (http://www.seomoz.org/q/panda-recovery-what-is-the-best-way-to-shrink-your-index-and-make-google-aware). Kerry22 mentioned a process in which 410s would be totally visible to googlebot so that it would easily recognize the removal of content. The conversation implied that it is not just important to remove the content, but also to give google the ability to recrawl that content to indeed confirm the content was removed (as opposed to just recrawling the site and not finding the content anywhere). This really made lots of sense to me and also struck a personal chord… Our website was hit by a later Panda refresh back in March 2012, and ever since then we have been aggressive about cutting content and doing what we can to improve user experience. When we cut pages, though, we used a different approach, doing all of the below steps:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
1. We cut the pages
2. We set up permanent 301 redirects for all of them immediately.
3. And at the same time, we would always remove from our site all links pointing to these pages (to make sure users didn’t stumble upon the removed pages. When we cut the content pages, we would either delete them or unpublish them, causing them to 404 or 401, but this is probably a moot point since we gave them 301 redirects every time anyway. We thought we could signal to Google that we removed the content while avoiding generating lots of errors that way… I see that this is basically the exact opposite of Dr. Pete's advice and opposite what Kerry22 used in order to get a recovery, and meanwhile here we are still trying to help our site recover. We've been feeling that our site should no longer be under the shadow of Panda. So here is what I'm wondering, and I'd be very appreciative of advice or answers for the following questions: 1. Is it possible that Google still thinks we have this content on our site, and we continue to suffer from Panda because of this?
Could there be a residual taint caused by the way we removed it, or is it all water under the bridge at this point because Google would have figured out we removed it (albeit not in a preferred way)? 2. If there’s a possibility our former cutting process has caused lasting issues and affected how Google sees us, what can we do now (if anything) to correct the damage we did? Thank you in advance for your help,
Eric1 -
Schema.org and Testimonials
Does anyone know which fields and code are necessary to embed a testimonial into a page using schema.org?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rarbel0