Secure and non-secure Schema.org Markup?
-
Is it possible to have schema.org itemtypes for both secure and insecure ports? I run a static-ish site made in Jekyll, and am implementing Schema.org on the individual pages. As a result, I'm trying to use the following:
This doesn't validate with Google's Rich Snippet Tool. It doesn't register the Items as existing. Is there a good way to implement Schema.org in a static page hosted on both SSL and non-SSL ports?
-
the http URL will not work on an https page. I have changed the URL to https and it works in http and https sites. Thank you.
-
Hello RoxBrock,
I have verified markup on https sites/urls with that tool so I'm not sure that's the issue. If the code you put above is the entirety of your markup, it looks to me like you've left out a few things, such as:
The full URL to the Schema itemtype. You have //schema.org/organization but I would put http://schema.org/Organization.
YOUR CLIENT ORGANIZATION
Perhaps this could be the cause for your markup not validating with Google? Please try and let us know how it goes.
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
-
Spammy Structured Data Markup Removal
Hi There, I'm in a weird situation and I am wondering if you can help me. Here we go, We had some of our developers implement structured data markup on our site, and they obviously did not know what they were doing. They messed up our results in the SERP big time and we wound up getting manually penalized for it. We removed those markups and got rid of that penalty (phew), however now we are still stuck with two issues. We had some pages that we changed their URLs, so the old URLs are now dead pages getting redirected to the newer version of the same old page, however, two things now happened: a) for some reason two of the old dead pages still come up in the Google SERP, even though it's over six weeks since we changed the URLs. We made sure that we aren't linking to the old version of the url anywhere from our site. b) those two old URLs are showing up in the SERP with the old spammy markup. We don't have anywhere to remove the markup from cause there are no such pages anymore so obviously there isn't this markup code anywhere anymore. We need a solution for getting the markup out of the SERP. We thought of one idea that might help - create new pages for those old URLs, and make sure that there is nothing spammy in there, and we should tell google not to index these pages - hopefully, that will get Google to de-index those pages. Is this a good idea, if yes, is there anything I should know about, or watch out for? Or do you have a better one for me? Thanks so much
Technical SEO | | Joseph-Green-SEO0 -
Non-standard HTML tags in content
I had coded my website's article content with a non-standard tag <cnt>that surrounded other standard tags that contained the article content, I.e.</cnt> , . The whole text was enclosed in a div that used Schema.org markup to identify the contents of the div as the articleBody. When looking at scraped data for stories in Webmaster Tools, the content of the story was there and identified as the articleBody correctly. It's recently been suggested by someone else that the presence of the non-standard <cnt>tags were actually making the content of the article uncrawlable by the Googlebot, this effectively rendering the content invisible. I did not believe this to be true, since the content appeared to be correctly indexed in Webmaster Tools, but for the sake of a test I agreed to removing them. In the last 6 weeks since they were removed, there have been no changes in impressions or traffic from organic search, which leads me to believe that the removal of the <cnt>tags actually had no effect, since the content was already being indexed successfully and nothing else has changed.</cnt></cnt> My question is whether or not an encapsulating non-standard tag as I've described would actually make the content invisible to Googlebot, or if it should not have made any difference so long as the correct Schema.org markup was in place? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | dlindsey0 -
Schema query
Hello All, I have implemented schema on product page. On My product page at left section there is one section i.e. "Popular Products" in that 5 Popular products are listed. Now when I visit ABCD product page then in "Popular Product" section also out of 5 products this ABCD product also listed. Finally when I check structured data testing tool in that following details are available for products - @type, @id, image, name, url, sku, category, description, offers & offers all details, Brand & brands all details ...now after that there in "Is Related To" in that five products following details are there - @type, @id, image, name, url & offers that's it. So my query is, is this consider as duplicate? or no issue at all with google? Thanks! 6dHvQ
Technical SEO | | wright3350 -
Secure HTTP Change - No Links in WMT
Website was changed over to secure HTTP about twp months ago. Just looked in Google Webmaster Tools and it only shows about 8 inbound links. We did a permanent 301 redirect for all URLs. There are over 800 links according to Open Site Explorer. Is it just that they are showing only the HTTPS inbound links? Should I add the HTTPS version in WMT? Thanks for any assistance
Technical SEO | | EBI0 -
Event Schema markup for multiple events (same location/address)?
I was wondering if its possible to markup multiple events on the same page for one location/address using the event schema.org markup? I tried doing it on a sample page below: http://www.rama.id.au/event-schema-test/ Google's schema testing tool shows that its all good (except for warning for offers). Just wanted to know if I am doing it correctly or is there a better solution. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you 🙂
Technical SEO | | Vsood0 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
Redirecting non-www to www
Hi all, I recently ran my first diagnostic test with SEOmoz and was alarmed to find my company's site has over 8,000 cases of duplicate content, virtually all of which can be attributed to separate domains, www vs. non-www. So after some research I found that this can be solved easily using .htaccess. However I found a warning on another site that if my site has already been indexed by Google without the www, there could be side effects like a loss in PR. Can anybody tell me how to find out whether my site falls into this category? I do have access to Google Webmaster tools but I can't find anywhere that tells me how my site's been indexed. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | rylaughlin0 -
Indexed non www. content
Google has indexed a lot of old non www.mysite.com contnet my page at mysite.com still answers queries, should I 301 every url on it? Google has indexed about 200 pages all erogenous 404's, old directories and dynamic content at mysite.com www.mysite.com has 12 pages listed that are all current. Is this affecting my rankings?
Technical SEO | | adamzski0