Mobile header and Schema Tags
-
We have recently made a website I work on responsive. This involved taking their original desktop site and then making it work on mobiles/tablets. Due to the nature of their existing header we are serving a different version to mobiles/tablets.
Do the schema tags which are on the desktop header need to be added to the mobile version or are they just needed on the desktop code?
-
Hi Edward,
Schema tags are intended to a) indicate with more granularity what a given element is on a page (e.g. 'review', 'recipe', 'video file', etc.), and b) this information can sometimes be used by Google for rich snippets in the SERPs. So whether you need to include these tags in the mobile version of your header will depend on what they are describing. If the code for the header is different for the desktop and mobile versions, but you do have the same element and you do want the schema tags to be there, you'll need to include them; if the element which you're marking up in the desktop header isn't present in the mobile header, don't include them.
There aren't currently (to my knowledge) specific Schema tags which indicate a 'mobile site'. (The ones that Robert mentioned seem to be for marking up a page featuring a mobile app). If you had a separate URL for mobile visitors, such as m.domain.com, you would need a mobile 'rel=canonical' tag to avoid duplicate content but that doesn't sound like it's the case for your site.
It sounds to me like you're using dynamic serving, rather than a pure responsive design. (pure responsive only changes the CSS whereas dynamic serving keeps the same URL but serves up different HTML based on user agent). If this is the case, you'll also want to include a vary HTTP header based on user agent. (the Google guidelines for how to do this are here.) This indicates to Google that you are serving a different HTML based on user agent, and not cloaking.
Hope that helps!
-
Given what you have here, the schema should be added to the mobile.
Best
-
Sorry if this wasn't clear.. there is a different version of the header which is pulled in for the mobile version. The structure and contents of the desktop header was too complicated to use on a mobile, the client didn't want to amend the design of the desktop site. Only the header section is different, everything else is the same code.
-
Edward,
When you say you made the site responsive and you serve a different version for mobile and tablets, I have to say I am confused. Are you stating that you made a site responsive, and you are serving a site that is different for mobile/tablet? My first thought is why make the site responsive if you are going to serve a mobile site?
For mobile there is schema that you should use (again, I am assuming you are serving two versions).
Best
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
-
Google not detecting hreflang tags
Hey guys, Recently (approx 1 month ago) did a migration from the .co.uk version of our site to .com/en. We've been doing a migration every few months to get everything under our .com. Previous migrations haven't had any problems at all, and hreflang tags detected correctly. For this new UK migration (that was done 1 month ago) google is saying that it doesn't detect any hreflang tags. We place our hreflang tags in our sitemap and so far we haven't had any problems with it. Here's the sitemap: https://camaloon.com/en/web-sitemap.xml Any thoughts on what could be happening? I really appreciate your input and help 🙌
Technical SEO | | mooj0 -
Size of image for article Schema
Hi, I implemented schema markup for an article and all tested fine and I can see it being fired in preview mode of Google Tag Manager. But when I run the URL which has it applied through Google Structured Testing tool it is not appearing. I have now read that the image needs to be a certain size. For AMP articles this appears to be 12oo pixels wide http://www.thesempost.com/google-changes-image-size-requirements-amp-articles/ But what about non-AMP articles? Does it need to be that big too?
Technical SEO | | AL123al0 -
Mobile site not getting indexed
My site is www.findyogi.com - a shopping comparison site The mobile site is hosted at m.findyogi.com I fixed my sitemap and attribution to mobile site in May last week. My mobile site pages are getting de-indexed since then. Website - www.findyogi.com/mobiles/motorola/motorola-moto-g-16gb-b95ef8/price - indexed Mobile - m.findyogi.com/mobiles/motorola/motorola-moto-g-16gb-b95ef8/price - _not indexed. _ Google is crawling my website and mobile site normally. What am I am doing wrong?
Technical SEO | | namansr0 -
The Mysterious Case of Pagination, Canonical Tags
Hey guys, My head explodes when I think of this problem. So I will leave it to you guys to find a solution... My root domain (xxx.com) runs on WordPress platform. I use Yoast SEO plugin. The next page of root domain -- page/2/ -- has been canonicalized to the same page -- page/2/ points to page/2/ for example. The page/2/ and remaining pages also have this rel tags: I have also added "noindex,follow" to page/2/ and further -- Yoast does this automatically. Note: Yoast plugin also adds canonical to page/2/...page/3/ automatically. Same is the case with category pages and tag pages. Oh, and the author pages too -- they all have self-canonicalization, rel prev & rel next tags, and have been "noindex, followed." Problem: Am I doing this the way it should be done? I asked a Google Webmaster employee on rel next and prev tags, and this is what she said: "We do not recommend noindexing later pages, nor rel="canonical"izing everything to the first page." (My bad, last year I was canonicalizing pages to first page). One of the popular blog, a competitor, uses none of these tags. Yet they rank higher. Others following this format have been hit with every kind of Google algorithm I could think of. I want to leave it to Google to decide what's better, but then again, Yoast SEO plugin rules my blog -- okay, let's say I am a bad coder. Any help, suggestions, and thoughts are highly appreciated. 🙂 Update 1: Paginated pages -- including category pages and tag pages -- have unique snippets; no full-length posts. Thought I'd make that clear.
Technical SEO | | sidstar0 -
Two different canonical tags on one page
Due to an error, some of my pages now have two canonical tags on them. One is correct and the other goes to a nonsense URL (404 page). I know I should ideally remove the incorrect ones, but it's a big manual job. Are they doing any harm? Can I just leave them there and let Google figure it out? The correct ones are higher up in the code. Will this make a difference? Any help appreciated.
Technical SEO | | ShearingsGroup0 -
How do I fix the h1 tag?
No More Than One H1 Tag Easy fix <dl> <dt>Number of H1s</dt> <dd>2</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Best practices for both SEO and accessibility require only a single H1 tag. The H1 is meant to be the page's headline, and thus, multiple H1s are confusing. Consider employing H2, H3 or CSS styles to achieve the same results with text visualization.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Remove multiple instances of the H1 tag, so that only one exists on the page.</dd> <dd>I get this error yet it does not tell me how to fix it. I'm not even sure what the H1 tag is?
Technical SEO | | 678648631264
</dd> </dl>0 -
How do i properly combine these two schema's from schema.org
So we're redoing our reviews/testimonials page on our website right now and moving over to the schema.org format as described here: http://schema.org/Review But we would like to combine each of our reviews with a location for which it was reviewed using this: http://schema.org/LocalBusiness What i can't wrap my head around would be the correct syntax? is it just the first block and then the next block? or is there a way of putting the actual physical address within the review page itself? So is this the correct way to do a page full of reviews that are reviewing various physical locations? * <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. 1. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> 2. # <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> 3. <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> 4. to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. 5. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> 6. <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> 7. <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, 8. <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> 10. Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<> <div< span="">itemprop="reviews" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"></div<>* <span< span="">itemprop="name">Value purchase</span<> -* by <span< span="">itemprop="author">Lucas</span<>,* <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished" content="2011-03-25">March 25, 2011</meta<>* <div< span="">itemprop="reviewRating" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Rating"></div<>* <meta< span="">itemprop="worstRating" content = "1"/></meta<>* <span< span="">itemprop="ratingValue">4</span<>/* <span< span="">itemprop="bestRating">5</span<>stars* <span< span="">itemprop="description">Great microwave for the price. It is small and</span<>* fits in my apartment. <div< span="">itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/LocalBusiness"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="name">Beachwalk Beachwear & Giftware</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="description"> A superb collection of fine gifts and clothing</span<> to accent your stay in Mexico Beach. <div< span="">itemprop="address" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/PostalAddress"></div<> <span< span="">itemprop="streetAddress">3102 Highway 98</span<> <span< span="">itemprop="addressLocality">Mexico Beach</span<>, <span< span="">itemprop="addressRegion">FL</span<> Phone: <span< span="">itemprop="telephone">850-648-4200</span<>
Technical SEO | | adriandg0 -
Optimum title and description meta tag length
Hi all, I have read that a title tag and description tag length of 69 and 156 characters respectively, should be used as this is all that Google will show in the search results, but that search engine robots will read longer titles and descriptions and additional characters will have an effect on ranking algorithms. However, is there any SEO benefit in making title and description tags longer to include more keywords to aid ranking, even though the latter part won't be visible in the results. I have read elsewhere on this forum that there may be concerns with regards to keyword dilution, but what about keyword reinforcement, i.e. by a repetition of the main keyword at the end of the title/description (I mean in a readable manner here, not 'stuffed')? Thanks in advance, Gareth
Technical SEO | | gdavies090319770
