Vimeo Rich Snippet correct?
-
Goodday MOZ-friends
We added our video to Vimeo PRO and added it to our website. (http://www.sitetogo.nl/) We also added a XML (http://www.sitetogo.nl/sitemap-video.xml)
I'm not sure if we done this correctly. Can anybody tell me this?
Thanks & Greetings, Vincent / www.sitetogo.nl
-
thanks! i fixed it yesterday. So now i start the waiting proces
greetings!
-
It'll take several weeks and up to a couple of months for Google to crawl your video sitemap. Once you've fixed it, as recommended, you'll need to sit tight and wait for the crawl.
-
I checked all with the MOZtoolbar and with webmaster tools. Both tell me there is no rich snippet on the website. (www.sitetogo.nl) Any ideas? Lot's of thanks....
best regards, Vincent
-
thanks! all clear. :-)) have a great day.
-
Well - your sitemap is fine, except your content_loc and player_loc tags are wrong.
You should replace the file which you reference in the content_loc tag with the current file being referenced in the player_loc tag (which is just an example.com link, which means I assume you used a tool to construct the sitemap). You should then cut the content_loc tag as you don't need it for this specific sitemap.
-
Wow. that's a fast answer. Thanks. Feeling a noob right now....
Can you explain what you mean?the embed code in de website is correct?
the XML needs only to have a player_loc? And i have to remove the content_loc?
-
Your player_loc tag as an example.com link in it and the file you're pointing to in your content_loc tag is a .swf file, which means that should be a player_loc tag instead.
Other than that, it looks fine.
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
-
Structured data / Rich snippets
I have made FAQ to my website Lån utan UC. I have double checked several time and the code is correct. THe problem is that the FAQ it does not show up i Google search. I have put the code at several subpages, like for example: Mikrolån and at all other sites it shows in SERP but not for the first mentioned site above. That site is the startpage/homepage is that relevant to the issue? Please help and I would be really happy. I have tried to fix this in months...
Technical SEO | | LanutanUC0 -
What is the correct Canonical tag on m.site?
We have 2 separate sites for desktop (www.example.com) and mobile (m.example.com) As per the guideline, we have added Rel=alternate tag on www.example.com to point to mobile URL(m.example.com) and Rel=canonical tag on m.example.com to point to Desktop site(www.example.com).However, i didn't find any guideline on what canonical tag we should add ifFor Desktop sitewww.example.com/PageA - has a canonical tag to www.example.com/PageBOn this page, we have a Rel=alternate tag m.example.com/pageAWhat will be the canonical we should add for the mobile version of Page Am.example.com/PageA - Canonical tag point to www.example.com/PageA -or www.example.com/PageB?Kalpesh
Technical SEO | | kguard0 -
Tough SEO problem, Google not caching page correctly
My web site is http://www.mercimamanboutique.com/ Cached version of French version is, cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/fr-fr/ showing incorrectly The German version: cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/de-de/ is showing correctly. I have resubmitted site links, and asked Google re-index the web site many times. The German version always gets cached properly, but the French version never does. This is frustrating me, any idea why? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ss20160 -
Self referencing canonicals AND duplicate URLs. Have I set them up correctly?
Hi team, We've recently redesigned our website. Originally we had separate product listings for every product. Even if there was one design in two colours, each colour had its own listing. With the redesign we merged all of these identical products to help with duplicate content. Customers can now browse the different stone colours available in that design from a single product listing (bottom left of screen under 'select a stone' on a product page) When the customer changes the stone colour, the product images change to the new colour and its product code is appended to the end of the existing URL. eg: http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/ (original listing) http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/?sku=JC1725BL (black selected) We have the following self referencing canonicals on all product pages [current-page:url:absolute], yet MOZ is telling me I have alot of duplicate content on pages with the above example. Have I implemented the canonicals correctly? Is this why Moz is flagging the listings as duplicate?
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Google local / Rich snippets in multiple locations
Hi All, Something i'm trying to understand about Google local but cant find precise info about what we are thinking of doing. We are located in City A, but also provide our services in almost every city in our country. We broker the service to branches that don't have their own local websites and want to take advantage of being listed in each city by marking up the address of each branch on each of our specific branch pages. All our pages are currently marked up using the physical company address. Would their be any issues marking up separate branch pages to the corresponding branch address, and then taking advantage of Local results in many areas around the country? In other words, Is it possible for a single website to mark up separate pages for different locations and take advantage of local results for each? Thanks in Advance Greg
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets0 -
Google+ Authorship, Rich Snippits and Three Names - a Problem?
Hello All, I have a conundrum that I thought I'd resolved - but that's popped its gnarly old head over the parapet again. I have a number of websites that I'd like to have show my ugly Google+ mug as author in the Google SERPS. I jumped through all the authorship verification hoops that Google threw at me and I thought I'd won. The problem? I have three names: Nick Beresford-Davies. One example of a page that I'm trying to achieve authorship with is: http://www.graphic-design-employment.com/illustrator-how-to-make-a-pattern.html I have verified authorship of the above website on my Google Profile:
Technical SEO | | Tinstar
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107765436751760696335/about Originally I footed the page with Nick Beresford-Davies (hyphenated) and the Structured Data Testing Tool ignored the hyphen and just saw Nick Beresford. So I tweaked my online name (to please Google!) to Nick Beresford Davies (no hyphen). Initially this seemed to work - but I just checked again and now Google, for reasons only known to itself, sees "nick davies" as the author, completely ignoring the name in the footer of the page (by Nick Beresford Davies) and the fact that the site has been verified by Google+. This is also the case for all other websites that I contribute to - and not all the bylines are in the footer - some are by the headline. When I test pages on the structured testing tool and enter my Google+ profile, it replies: nick davies, we've found your name as one of the authors from the page. You can use "Authorship verification by email" method above to verify your authorship.Error: Author name found on the page and Google+ profile name do not match. Please consider adding markup to the site.Much as I would like to succeed on the Google SERPS, I draw the line at changing my name to keep this robot happy - so if anyone has any suggestions, or can see any obvious step that I've missed, I'd be very grateful. I find it hard to believe that no other double-barrelled website author exists - so I'm hoping I'm not the only one to have experienced this... Thanks!0 -
How to correct a google canonical issue?
So when I initially launched my website I had an issue where I didn't properly set my canonical tags and all my pages got crawled. Now in looking at the search engine results I see a number of the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged to the correct page showing up in the results. What is the best way to correct this issue with google? Also I noticed that while initially I was ranking well for the main pages, now those results have disappeared entirely and deeper in the rankings I am finding the pages that were meant to be canonical tagged. Please Help.
Technical SEO | | jackaveli0 -
Keyword rich domains
Hi, Our site is beingthere.com.au We are in the business of video conferencing in Australia. I was wondering if there would be any benefit of purchasing keyword rich domains such as www.videoconferencing.net.au www.video streaming.net.au What would be the benefit(s)? And How would I go about using these domains to maximise SEO benefit? Thanks Dan
Technical SEO | | dantmurphy0
