Anyone know where we can find a validator for schema.org?
-
I was searching Bing and Google for a validator for schema.org but I can not seem to find one. It seems a little odd for them to promote and use the new standard but not give developers a way to ensure the markup is correctly parsed.
I am looking for something like the rich snippets tool Google has.
-
And that is why so many developers prefer to work in flash or silverlight. HTML will never be a standard as long as major browsers only support parts of it. Those development languages include the validation in the complier.
It is only asking for misuse of a schema to release a 'standard' with little documentaion and no validation. Arrh, the good ond days of IE6 and every second line of HTML being a test for what the browser is.
-
Supposedly, a tool is in the works, but frankly, I wouldn't expect to see it terribly quickly. As I understand it, schema.org's new "standard" is somewhat of a kluge - made up of many different others. As such, the validation process will be more complex, and more easily subverted by tons of potential issues.
To further complicate things, part of a schema.org validation would be looking at html5 as well, which can't be validated as a single markup. Instead, it's a kluge too. Interesting times ahead, I think.
-
I had that same question Donnie and also checked out the Rich Snippets Testing tool. It would be really handy to have a validator that actually worked!
-
I was in the process of adding videos to the site and when I saw the whiteboard Friday with the Bing interview, I thought this would be a good time to add the markup. Since the examples are very limited, I wanted to ensure my interperation complied, but alas it looks like I will have to wait for Google to index the page and see what happens. It does surprise me that they release a 'standard' without having a validator available. I have also posted on Microsoft connect to see if I can get a beta tool via MSDN.
Thanks for looking up those references for me Donnie.
-
I found where I read it. Thanks for that post, I hadn't yet read it. However, we have some misinformation going on here from the engines because on [schema's getting started page](2c. Testing your markup) @ '2c.Testing your markup', they say, "Google provides a rich snippets testing tool, which you can use to test your markup and identify any errors."
Perhaps, we're just too soon, too early of adopeters
Thanks oznappies -
Hi Donnie,
I know that one, but it does not test the schema.org markup as yet. Google makes note that although they support the new markup, the current rich snippets tool does not and they hope to have a new one out shortly.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/introducing-schemaorg-search-engines.html
states the following :4) Test your markup using the rich snippets
testing tool.
...
rich snippets previews are not yet shown for schema.org
markup. We’ll be adding this functionality soon. 6/5/11 -
I think I read somewhere that Google's Rich Snippets Testing Tool works for testing schema's markup also. I'll see if I can find where I heard/ read this.
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
-
Is image SEO worth it for e-commerce?
I have been trying to find any case studies of people who have optimized images for SEO for their e-commerce website, but haven't been able to find any case study, indicating obtained results. I am wondering how much increase in Google Image search traffic others have been able to obtain when optimizing their e-commerce images for image SEO. I need this information to justify development resources needed for for example an image sitemap, changes to file names and alt texts, title tags and possibly EXIF data. File size is already ok. Hope someone has experience with this and can share some results. Also, would be great if Moz would do a Whiteboard Friday about this 🙂 (hint!).
Whiteboard Friday | | DocdataCommerce0 -
How to rank a keyword?
My competitor has158 ranking keywords but has only 30 anchor texts on his all backlinks. i am only ranking for 2 keywords , how do i increase ranking keywords? whats the strategy?
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj0 -
What is the importance of anchor text in seo? And how does it relate to a ranking keyword?
i have one dilema if i put targeted keyword in the anchor text(backlink), is that how i am gonna rank for that keyword? i am new to the community. need help and lets say if thats true what will happen in these given cases? case1 site:a has 100 linking domains from 1000 backlinks and they have 100 anchor texts which are all same case 2 site:b has 100 linking domains from 1000 backlinks and they have 50 anchor texts which are all same which one will rank better?
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj1 -
Who is gonna rank better in this case?
site:a has 1500 linking domains and 20000 backlinks site:b has 1500 linking domains and 5000 backlinks does good ratio between linking domains and backlinks works? i am asking only in terms of backlink profile, i know there are more things than backlink.
Whiteboard Friday | | calvinkj0 -
Targeted Keyword in the document
Hi, I write long articles 3k and 5k words my question is that I read in Moz article not use your keyword more than 15 times is also apply for 3k articles ??? and if yes than my second question is that I used my targeted keyword in heading also include in 15 times ???
Whiteboard Friday | | Frozen_Fry0 -
Internal linking: Global Nav Bar obscuring link authority?
I was watching Rand's whiteboard on how links in the headers/footers can impact SEO: moz.com/blog/links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo If I understood correctly: 1) Google will use the first link in the html that it sees for a given page. Additional links will not be considered for passing weight. 2) Text links in body (carry more weight than) > image links > nav links > footer links If we want to use a global nav bar, is there a simple solution for not obscuring the links in the body content? (It seems very awkward to load the header nav last (and bring it up via css after the page loads), and this also goes against Google wanting people to load above-the-fold content quickly.) If I internally link to a page that was not important enough to get a spot in the global nav, but I include this link in the body as a text link (for example, an accessory specific to that item), is this internal link really getting more weight in Google's eyes because it wasn't in the nav? This seems strange to me. Thanks!
Whiteboard Friday | | HalfPriceBanners0 -
Should this site be using Rel=Canonical VS No Index
I'm currently working on this site https://www.visitliverpool.com/accommodation I've been watching this video by Rand - https://moz.com/blog/rel-canonical but it's still unclear in this scenario. if you use the search facility "check availability" half way down the page the results page (urlparams) are no indexed. Would it be better to index and canonicalise? There is no similar content but I'm concerned that no index will remove the ability for semantic content to be visible to google. LADkajY
Whiteboard Friday | | Andrew-SEO0 -
I am planning to move our DNS to new hosting, but worry re: our SEO ranking will be jepordized; is that a valid concern?
If moving to new hosting causes SEO loss, what can be done to mitigate loss in SEPR?
Whiteboard Friday | | Chermak0