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 MozBar says no schema.org markup when it exists and validates elsewhere
I have added schema.org markup to many pages on my site (e.g https://discoverquotes.com/wisdom/) - since it is a quote site I marked up all the quotations - it validates with schema.org - but when I use MozBar and look at Page Analysis-->Markup the moz bar says I have no schema.org markup. Is this something Moz only updates periodically? If so, anyone know how often they update? or any ideas why moz bar is reporting a false negative?
Moz Bar | | daviddq0 -
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 -
What is the best structured data for my website
We have 10:branches for our agency where we are looking to attract local businesses to use our marketing services, should each landing page have structured data for ‘local business’? Any advice would be helpful
Local SEO | | Caffeine_Marketing0 -
Removal tool - no option to choose mobile vs desktop. Why?
Google's removal tool doesn't give a person the option to tell them which index - mobile friendly, or desktop/laptop - the url should be removed from. Why? I may have a fundamental misunderstanding. The way I thought it works is that when you have a dynamically generated page based on the user agent, (ie, the SAME URL but different formatting for smartphones as for desktop/laptop) then the Google mobile bot will index the mobile friendly version and the desktop bot will index the desktop version -- so Google will have 2 different indexed results for the same url. That SEEMS to be validated by the existence of the words 'mobile-friendly' next to some of my mobile friendly page descriptions on mobile devices. HOWEVER, if that's how it works--why would Google not allow a person to remove one of the urls and keep the other? Is it because Google thinks a mobile version of a website must have all of the identical pages as the desktop version? What if it doesnt? What if a website is designed so that some of the slower pages simply aren't given a mobile version? Is it possible that Google doesn't really save results for a mobile friendly page if there is a corresponding desktop page-- but only checks to see if it renders ok? That is, it keeps only one indexed copy of each url, and basically assumes the mobile title and actual content is the same and only the formatting is different? That assumption isn't always true -- mobile devices lend themselves to different interactions with the user - but it certainly could save Google billions of dollars in storage. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | friendoffood0 -
Alternative Markup Challenge. Can anyone help?
I have a challenge around alternative markup. We currently operate a single domain with geo-targeted folders and alternative markup implemented. We are now now looking to expand this out to non-English content. Current Implementation; All generic English language content hosted on the main domain, with x5 English language content variations (locales) available under a folder structure (.com/en-us/ etc.). Alternative markup is in place for all locales within the HTML, implemented automatically by developers via the CMS. Locale folders geo-targeted via GWT and Bing WT. Planned Launch; Introduction of 5 new non-English locale folders (e.g. /de-de/ etc.), targeted to their respective country and language. Content language will be mixed, with around 1/10 of pages translated and the other 9/10 of pages (business listings) having their body content remain in English, with headers / footers translated. Locale folders will be geo-targeted via GWT and Bing WT. Folder and markup usage TBC. Options; Folders; Implement folder structure /de/, attempting to indicate country but not language (issue; usually a single identifier indicates language, not country?). Implement /de-de/ folder structure to match the English locales and maintain correct country targeting (issue; some content is not in language). Alternative markup; Do not make use of markup at all. Implement CMS based automated markup on all English and non-English content throughout the locale (e.g. /de-de/), but exclude English language versions (e.g. /en-gb/). Attempt manually implementing markup to bridge the English and non-English locales, potentially creating future issues with new content going live and content being removed. A heavy risk. Current approach is webmaster tools targeting, a /de-de/ folder structure and automated implementation of markup. This means English language URLs will have markup and non-English language URLs will have markup, but they will not match up (e.g. English pages will never have markup for non-English language content). If you minds haven't melted, what's your thoughts? Any help is much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HelloAlba0 -
Losing Rank As A Result Of Domain Change
I have a client who is wishing to switch from an established, but unattractive domain, to a domain he just purchased that is more attractive. For example purposes, his existing site is "His-Company-Website.com" and the site he just purchased and wants to transfer to is "HisCompanyWebsite.com." The only difference is the old site has hyphens in between the words and the new one does not. He is not making this choice from an SEO perspective, but more of a "I don't want to keep saying all those hyphens when telling people about my website." But he said he doesn't want to lose his search engine rankings as a result. So he knows this won't necessarily increase his ranks, but doesn't want them to drop as a result. When speaking with him, I thought we could simply toss in a 301 redirect at the root level and pipe them over to the other site, but he wanted some actual proof. I went back to look at what I thought would be a similar case that I did earlier in the year (transferring from a .net to a .com) and noticed that we did see some rather substantial drops in at least traffic, so I am not so sure about this plan any longer. So my questions for my far more insightful colleagues... What would be your suggestion on this problem? Transition to the more user friendly domain or stick with the unfriendly domain? If he does elect to transition to the new domain, what all can I do to preserve his search engine rankings? Should a rankings and/or traffic drop be predicting when completing this? Thank you all in advance. Any other tidbits anyone has to offer would be great. Looking forward to your replies.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ClayPotCreative0 -
Schema & Microdata Plugins for WordPress
Hi Mozzers- Just curious - what is everyone using for schema and microdata plugins for WordPress? I've tried a few different plugins but I'd love to hear what other Mozzers like. Thanks! LHC
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lhc670