"Ghost" errors on blog structured data?
-
Hi,
I'm working on a blog which Search Console account advises me about a big bunch of errors on its structured data:
But I get to https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/ and it tells me "all is ok":
Any clue?
Thanks in advance,
-
Hi Everett,
Yes it seems that this is the way.
Thanks a lot.
-
Yes it is.
Well, it's both a magento site with a wordpress blog.
Thank you very much
-
Webicultors,
Read this thread on Google's Product Forums. Let us know if it answers your question. If not, at least you're not alone...
Upon reading several similar threads on various forums and Q&A sites, it appears this is a very common occurrence resulting from a disparity between what the two tools define as an "error". The testing tool seems to be limited to errors in syntax / markup while GSC may see missing elements as errors.
-
Hi,
I've just added a couple of screenshots more to illustrate that I've already checked this information you are telling me.
But the test tool keeps telling me: All OK
Thanks
-
Like Kristen mentions, you should be able to see an overview of the Schema.org implementations with the amount of errors that they have individually. So that's why you're already not seeing any changes in the one URL you were testing. In the list you should be easily able to identify the pages with issues.
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 - How frequent does Google update?
Hi all, I recently updated some markup on my site about a week ago. However, when using the structured data testing tool and inserting the URL of the page that was updated with the schema, I see that the schema being recognized does not reflect the updated markup. However, when I use the structured data testing tool again and insert the code I used for the schema, I see no errors and all info was implemented properly. Any idea why my updates (which seem to be correct based on my code) are not reflecting when testing the URL of my site via structured data testing tool? Is there some delay for this data to update? Any insight would be much appreciated. Thanks all in advance! Best,
Technical SEO | | hdeg
Sung0 -
Sitemap error
Hi, When i search for my blog post in google i get sitemap results, and when i click on it i get an error, here is the screen shot http://screencast.com/t/lXOIiTnVZR1 http://screencast.com/t/MPWkuc4Ocixy How can i fix that, it loos like if i just add www. it work just fine. Thanks
Technical SEO | | tonyklu0 -
I always get this error "We have detected that the domain or subfolder does not respond to web requests." I don't know why. PLEASE help
subdomain www.nwexterminating.com subfolder www.nwexterminating.com/pest_control www.nwexterminating.com/termite_services www.nwexterminating.com/bed_bug_services
Technical SEO | | NWExterminating0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Same URL in "Duplicate Content" and "Blocked by robots.txt"?
How can the same URL show up in Seomoz Crawl Diagnostics "Most common errors and warnings" in both the "Duplicate Content"-list and the "Blocked by robots.txt"-list? Shouldnt the latter exclude it from the first list?
Technical SEO | | alsvik0 -
Can name="author" register as a link?
Hi all, We're seeing a very strange result in Google Webmaster tools. In "Links to your site", there is a site which we had nothing to do with (i.e. we didn't design or build it) showing over 1600 links to our site! I've checked the site several times now, and the only reference to us is in the rel="author" tag. Clearly the agency that did their design / SEO have nicked our meta, forgetting to delete or change the author tag!! There are literally no other references to us on this site, there hasn't every been (to our knowledge, at least) and so I'm very puzzled as to why Google thinks there are 1600+ links pointing to us. The only thing I can think of is that Google will recognise name="author" content as a link... seems strange, though. Plus the content="" only contains our company name, not our URL. Can anybody shed any light on this for me? Thanks guys!
Technical SEO | | RiceMedia0 -
Does Google follow links in "id" tag?
Hello, For functionality purposes, I need to wrap separate blocks of content with a tag. The main question is whether Google will follow this URL, even though it is not a hyperlink on the page, just a URL used for functionality purposes. We will have 10-20 of these types of span tags with a different URL for each one, and we just want to be sure that Google will not be following these URLs that are not links. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan0 -
Correct 301 of domain inclusive "/"
Do I have to redirect "/" in the domain by default? My root domain is e.g. petra.at
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
--> I redirect via 301 to www.petra.at Do I have to do that with petra.at/ and www.petra.at/, too?0