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 Implementation: "Physician" vs. "Person"
-
Hey all,
I'm looking to implement Schema tagging for a local business and am unsure of whether to use "Physician" or "Person" for a handful of doctors. Though "Physician" seems like it should be the obvious answer, Schema.org states that it should refer to "A doctor's office" instead of a physician.
The properties used in "Physician" seem to apply to a physician's practice, and not an actual physician. Properties are sourced from the "Thing", "Place", "Organization", and "LocalBusiness" schemas, so I'm wondering if "Person" might be a more appropriate implementation since it allows for more detail (affiliations, awards, colleagues, jobTitle, memberOf), but I wanna make sure I get this right.
Also, I'm wondering if the "Physician" schema allows for properties pulled from the "Person" schema, which I think would solve everything.
For reference:
Thanks, everyone! Let me know how off-base my strategy is, and how I might be able to tidy it up.
-
Hi,
It's really hard to pick right option in these kind of situations since there isn't right answer
There are perfectly good arguments for choosing both options and there isn't clear definition on what would classify something for one schema and not for another.
Best advice I can give you is to go with what feels right to you.
Kind regards
Bojan
-
My plan was to implement "medicalOrganization" in the footer of every page to define the company, as opposed to "Physician", as it's a larger group with 16 locations.
Maybe my assumption is wrong, but it seems like "Physician" should refer to an individual practitioner's business; because it inherits properties from "Thing", "Place", "Organization" and "LocalBusiness", my thinking was that "medicalOrganization" would be more appropriate for the group.
That said, if "Physician" inherits properties from "medicalOrganization" (via subClassOf), would "Physician" be the best way to mark up / define the group?
Thanks for the help – I like the idea, and will probably incorporate "members" into the "medicalOrganization" or "Physician" schema, whichever seems to be most appropriate / relevant.
-
Hi
You can use "Physician" to describe medical office and under its attribute "members" you can post list of doctors as "Person",
Kind regards
Bojan
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
-
Schema for a discount
Hi! I'm trying to implement schema for a discount and it doesn't seem to be working. Is this the correct code? NAME OF ORDER HERE are $DISCOUNT HERE What am I missing? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 199580 -
Hreflang in vs. sitemap?
Hi all, I decided to identify alternate language pages of my site via sitemap to save our development team some time. I also like the idea of having leaner markup. However, my site has many alternate language and country page variations, so after creating a sitemap that includes mostly tier 1 and tier 2 level URLs, i now have a sitemap file that's 17mb. I did a couple google searches to see is sitemap file size can ever be an issue and found a discussion or two that suggested keeping the size small and a really old article that recommended keeping it < 10mb. Does the sitemap file size matter? GWT has verified the sitemap and appears to be indexing the URLs fine. Are there any particular benefits to specifying alternate versions of a URL in vs. sitemap? Thanks, -Eugene
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eugene_bgb0 -
Putting "noindex" on a page that's in an iframe... what will that mean for the parent page?
If I've got a page that is being called in an iframe, on my homepage, and I don't want that called page to be indexed.... so I put a noindex tag on the called page (but not on the homepage) what might that mean for the homepage? Nothing? Will Google, Bing, Yahoo, or anyone else, potentially see that as a noindex tag on my homepage?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Philip-DiPatrizio0 -
When is it recommended to use a self referencing rel "canonical"?
In what type of a situation is it the best type of practice to use a self referencing rel "canonical" tag? Are there particular practices to be cautious of when using a self referencing rel "canonical" tag? I see this practice used mainly with larger websites but I can't find any information that really explains when is a good time to make use of this practice for SEO purposes. Appreciate all feedback. Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO_Promenade0 -
Schema markup for video playlists?
We're adding schema markup for all of our videos, but some videos exist only in a playlist (all integrated into one URL, and loaded after a javascript call). Per Google: "Make sure that your video and schema.org markup are visible without executing any JavaScript or Flash." https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2413309?hl=en So we know the current implementation won't work for schema markup... What's the best practice for adding schema markup for video playlists? Should we host all of these videos on individual URLs (but then they appear twice) or is there some other workaround?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Using a lot of "Read More" Hidden text
My site has a LOT of "read more" and when a user click they will see a lot of text. "read more" is dark blue bold and clear to the user. It is the perfect for the user experience, since right below I have pictures and videos which is what most users want. Question: I expect few users will click "Read more" (however, some users will appreciate chance to read and learn more) and I wonder if search engines may think I am hiding text and this is a risky approach or simply discount the text as having zero value from an SEO perspective? Or, equally important: If the text was NOT hidden with a "Read more" would the text actually carry more SEO value than if it is hidden under a "read more" even though users will NOT read the text anyway? If yes, reason may be: when the text is not hidden, search engines cannot see that users are not reading it and the text carry more weight from an SEO perspective than pages where text is hidden under a "Read more" where users rarely click "read more".
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Brackets vs Encoded URLs: The "Same" in Google's eyes, or dup content?
Hello, This is the first time I've asked a question here, but I would really appreciate the advice of the community - thank you, thank you! Scenario: Internal linking is pointing to two different versions of a URL, one with brackets [] and the other version with the brackets encoded as %5B%5D Version 1: http://www.site.com/test?hello**[]=all&howdy[]=all&ciao[]=all
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mirabile
Version 2: http://www.site.com/test?hello%5B%5D**=all&howdy**%5B%5D**=all&ciao**%5B%5D**=all Question: Will search engines view these as duplicate content? Technically there is a difference in characters, but it's only because one version encodes the brackets, and the other does not (See: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_urlencode.asp) We are asking the developer to encode ALL URLs because this seems cleaner but they are telling us that Google will see zero difference. We aren't sure if this is true, since engines can get so _hung up on even one single difference in character. _ We don't want to unnecessarily fracture the internal link structure of the site, so again - any feedback is welcome, thank you. 🙂0 -
Schema.org on Youtube iframe embed?
So I've tried scouring the internet on the proper way to markup youtube videos. I know there's the VideoObject propery but that seems to be more made for the old school embed code that looks like this: <embed width="100%" id="video-player-flash" height="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swfbin/watch_as3-vflpp9opi.swf" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="el=embedded&fexp=904001%2C914057%2C918000%2C910206%2C907217%2C907335%2C921602%2C919306%2C922600%2C919316%2C920704%2C912804%2C913542%2C919324%2C912706&is_html5_mobile_device=false&tabsb=1&hl=en_US&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dial800.com%2Fblog%2Fvideos%2Fdial800-product-overview-video&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fgk1aD9UCKYA%2Fhqdefault.jpg&tspto=12000&probably_logged_in=1&tsp_buffer=10&video_id=gk1aD9UCKYA&tsp_dvrloop=50&sendtmp=1&enablejsapi=1&sk=WZy3rFIXzzhTB_BpmE1p1tTsbxMib1vIC&rel=1&playlist_module=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswfbin%2Fplaylist_module-vfl3lol2H.swf&jsapicallback=ytPlayerOnYouTubePlayerReady&playerapiid=player1&framer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dial800.com%2Fblog%2Fvideos%2Fdial800-product-overview-video"> Do I need to use that code or is it possible to mark it up using just the clean iframe src that youtube provides now?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SirSud0