We're currently not using schemas on our website. How important is it? And are websites across the globe using it?
-
Schemas looks like an important thing when it comes to structuring your website and ensuring the crawl bots get all the details. I've been reading a lot of articles around the web and most of them are saying that schemas are important but very few websites are using it. Why so? Are the schemas on schema.org there to stay or am I wasting my time?
-
Hi Pawan,
You're welcome Yes, I believe you are correct in saying that the data highlighter really only translates to Google right now. However, it seems Bing and Yahoo1 really are doing very little with structured data right now. I think it depends on your industry regarding your timeline of adding the markup. If you are in the restaurant, food or travel industry, I think you really have to start now just to stay competitive. If you're in a niche, maybe it's not so crucial. One thing's for sure, what's true about structured data now will probably be different in 6 months, so whatever you do now will need to reviewed over time, just like most anything else related to SEO There's always something new and always something changing. That's why we love it right?
Dana
-
Thanks for your input Dana. As you are saying that the schema.org markup is still sporadic, will it better if I wait for a couple of months before making the changes? Or is it the right time?
And about the microdata highlighter you are talking about, it'll just help the Google bot, not the crawlers from bing and yahoo, right? So wouldn't it be better if I use the schema.org markups?
-
I totally agree with Lesley. You asked why so few few sites might be using them. I think it's a question of knowledge and implementation. Unless you are extremely comfortable with HTML and XML, schema.org markup can be very intimidating. It also doesn't help that Google is choosing to display only certain elements of structured data right now, and even then, it's sporadic. In fact, recently, Google went from displaying a lot of authorship information to displaying less. This is all still in experimental stages. That being said, will it go away? i.e. Is it just a search fad?
My answer is: "no," structured data (also referred to as "schema," "microdata," "rich snippets," and "microformats" ) will only become more and more important until search engine bots get better at understanding different elements of a Web page, for example, understanding that there might be a MSRP price, an "our price" and a "regular price" simply by crawling the data. Right now, bots aren't very good at that because if they crawl three prices, all they are understanding is a very basic "$10.00" - "$8.00" - "$7.00" - but they won't have any idea how those three prices relate to each other without schema.org markup. Or, as another example, especially for e-commerce, a product page might have many images on it. How does a bot know which image on the page is the main product image? Bots aren't quite smart enough to know this because they can't "see" a page like a human sees a page...they can only crawl code.
But, fear not! There is help! Google initiated a microdata highlighter in Google Webmaster Tools sometime last year. If you have a smaller, simpler site, you can use this tool to markup your pages with schema without knowing a lick of code. Here's how to do it: http://www.danatanseo.com/2013/08/google-finally-demystifies-structured.html
Hope this is helpful!
-
I would consider them important. Most of my clients are e-commerce sites and I put them on every site that I do. A lot of platforms are supporting them out of the box now, if that speaks to importance to you.
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
-
Should I have multiple websites for my different brands or one main website with different tabs/areas?
My client creates apps. As well as the apps they create themselves, they have made some of their own that cover various different topics. Currently they have individual websites for each of these apps, and a website for their app making business. They are asking whether they should just have one website - their app building site, which also includes information about the two apps they've built themselves. My feeling is it's better to keep them separate. The app building site is trying to appeal to a B2B audience and gain business to build new apps. AppA is trying to help carehomes and carers to streamline their business, and AppB is trying to help workplace and employee welfare. Combining them all will mean lots of mixed messaging/keywords even if we have dedicated areas on the site. I also think it will limit how much content we can create on each without being completely overwhelming for the user. If we keep them all separate then we can have a very clear user journey. I would of course recommend having blog posts or some sort of landing page to link to AppA and AppB's websites. Thoughts? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WhitewallGlasgow0 -
Syntax: 'canonical' vs "canonical" (Apostrophes or Quotes) does it matter?
I have been working on a site and through all the tools (Screaming Frog & Moz Bar) I've used it recognizes the canonical, but does Google? This is the only site I've worked on that has apostrophes. rel='canonical' href='https://www.example.com'/> It's apostrophes vs quotes. Could this error in syntax be causing the canonical not to be recognized? rel="canonical"href="https://www.example.com"/>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ccox10 -
Help with Schema & what's considered "Spammy structured markup"
Hello all! I was wondering if someone with a good understanding of schema markup could please answer my question about the correct use so I can correct a penalty I just received. My website is using the following schema markup for our reviews and today I received this message in my search console. UGH... Manual Actions This site may not perform as well in Google results because it appears to be in violation of Google's Webmaster Guidelines. Site-wide matches Some manual actions apply to entire site <colgroup><col class="JX0GPIC-d-h"><col class="JX0GPIC-d-x"><col class="JX0GPIC-d-a"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | reversedotmortgage
| | Reason | Affects |
| | Spammy structured markup Markup on some pages on this site appears to use techniques such as marking up content that is invisible to users, marking up irrelevant or misleading content, and/or other manipulative behavior that violates Google's Rich Snippet Quality guidelines. Learn more. | I have used the webmasters rich snippets tool but everything checks out. The only thing I could think of is my schema tag for "product." rather than using a company like tag? (https://schema.org/Corporation). We are a mortgage company so we sell a product it's called a mortgage so I assumed product would be appropriate. Could that even be the issue? I checked another site that uses a similar markup and they don't seem to have any problems in SERPS. http://www.fha.com/fha_reverse shows stars and they call their reviews "store" OR could it be that I added my reviews in my footer so that each of my pages would have a chance at displaying my stars? All our reviews are independently verified and we just would like to showcase them. I greatly appreciate the feedback and had no intentions of abusing the markup. From my site: All Reverse Mortgage 4.9 out of 5 301 Verified Customer Reviews from eKomi | |
| | [https://www.ekomi-us.com/review-reverse.mortgage.html](<a class=)" rel="nofollow" title="eKomi verified customer reviews" target="_BLANK" style="text-decoration:none; font-size:1.1em;"> |
| | ![](<a class=)imgs/rating-bar5.png" /> |
| | |
| | All Reverse Mortgage |
| | |
| | |
| | 4.9 out of 5 |
| | 301 Verified Customer Reviews from eKomi |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |1 -
Website using search term as URL brand name to cheat Google
Google has come a long way over the past 5 years, the quality updates have really helped bring top quality content to the top that is relevant for users search terms, although there is one really ANNOYING thing that still has not been fixed. Websites using brand name as service search term to manipulate Google I have got a real example but I wouldn't like to use it in case the brand mentions flags up in their tools and they spot this post, but take this search for example "Service+Location" You will get 'service+location.com' rank #1 Why? Heaven knows. They have less than 100 backlinks which are of a very low, spammy quality from directories. The content is poor compared to the competition and the competitors have amazing link profiles, great social engagement, much better website user experience and the data does not prove anything. All the competitors are targeting the same search term but yet the worst site is ranking the highest. Why on earth is Google not fixing this issue. This page we are seeing rank #1 do not even deserve to be ranking on the first 5 pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jseddon920 -
Should we use URL parameters or plain URL's=
Hi, Me and the development team are having a heated discussion about one of the more important thing in life, i.e. URL structures on our site. Let's say we are creating a AirBNB clone, and we want to be found when people search for apartments new york. As we have both have houses and apartments in all cities in the U.S it would make sense for our url to at least include these, so clone.com/Appartments/New-York but the user are also able to filter on price and size. This isn't really relevant for google, and we all agree on clone.com/Apartments/New-York should be canonical for all apartment/New York searches. But how should the url look like for people having a price for max 300$ and 100 sqft? clone.com/Apartments/New-York?price=30&size=100 or (We are using Node.js so no problem) clone.com/Apartments/New-York/Price/30/Size/100 The developers hate url parameters with a vengeance, and think the last version is the preferable one and most user readable, and says that as long we use canonical on everything to clone.com/Apartments/New-York it won't matter for god old google. I think the url parameters are the way to go for two reasons. One is that google might by themselves figure out that the price parameter doesn't matter (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687?hl=en) and also it is possible in webmaster tools to actually tell google that you shouldn't worry about a parameter. We have agreed to disagree on this point, and let the wisdom of Moz decide what we ought to do. What do you all think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peekabo0 -
How do I use old websites to best effect?
I own a couple of old sites with DA of 15 and 17 which don't really rank for anything, as well as my main site which as DA of 29. Can I forward these domains to my main site to increase the DA of my main site. Alternatively is there any other way of making use of these sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | benacuity0 -
Do I need to use canonical tags if I'm 301 redirecting pages?
I just took a job about three months and one of the first things I wanted to do was restructure the site. The current structure is solution based but I am moving it toward a product focus. The problem I'm having is the CMS I'm using isn't the greatest (and yes I've brought this up to my CMS provider). It creates multiple URL's for the same page. For example, these two urls are the same page: (note: these aren't the actual urls, I just made them up for demonstration purposes) http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Omnipress
http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/bossman.cmsx (I know this is terrible, and once our contract is up we'll be looking at a different provider) So clearly I need to set up canonical tags for the last two pages that look like this: With the new site restructure, do I need to put a canonical tag on the second page to tell the search engine that it's the same as the first, since I'll be changing the category it's in? For Example: http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/ will become http://www.website.com/home/MEET-OUR-TEAM/team-leaders/boss-man My overall question is, do I need to spend the time to run through our entire site and do canonical tags AND 301 redirects to the new page, or can I just simply redirect both of them to the new page? I hope this makes sense. Your help is greatly appreciated!!0 -
In order to improve SEO with silos'urls, should i move my posts from blog directory to pages'directories ?
Now, my website is like this: myurl.com/blog/category1/mypost.html myurl.com/category1/mypage.html So I use silos urls. I'd like to improve my ranking a little bit more. Is it better to change my urls like this: myurl.com/category1/blog/mypost.html or maybe myurl.com/category1/mypost.html myurl.com/category1/mypage.html Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Max840