"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
-
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog.
We switched the domain from www.blog.domain.com to domain.com/blog. This was done with the purpose of gaining backlinks to our main website as well along with to our blog. This set us very low in organic traffic and not to mention, lost the backlinks. For anything, they are being redirected to 301 code. Kindly suggest changes to bring back all the traffic.
Technical SEO | | arun.negi0 -
Homepage "personalisation" - different content for different users
Hi Mozians, My firm is looking to present different content to different users depending on whether they are new, return visitors, return customers etc... I am concerned how this would work in practice as far as Google is concrened- how would react to the fact that the bot would see different content to some users. It has the slight whiff of cloacking about it to me, but I also get that in this case it would be a UX thing that would genuinely be of benefit to users, and clearly wouldn't be intended to manipulate search rankings at all. Is there a way of acheiving this "personalisation" in such a way that Google understands thay you are doint it? I am thinking about some kind of markup that "declares" the different versions of the page. Basically I want to be as transparent about it as possible so as to avoid un-intended consequences. Many thanks indeed!
Technical SEO | | unirmk0 -
Please let me know if I am in a right direction with fixing rel="canonical" issue?
While doing my website crawl, I keep getting the message that I have tons of duplicated pages.
Technical SEO | | kirupa
http://example.com/index.php and http://www.example.com/index.php are considered to be the duplicates. As I figured out this one: http://example.com/index.php is a canonical page, and I should point out this one: http://www.example.com/index.php to it. Could you please let me know if I will do a right thing if I put this piece of code into my index.php file?
? Or I should use this one:0 -
Combining variants of "last modified", cache-duration etc
Hiya, As you know, you can specify the date of the last change of a document in various places, for example the sitemap, the http-header, ETag and also add an "expected" change, for example Cache-Duration via header/htaccess (or even the changefreq in the sitemap). Is it advisable or rather detrimental to use multiple variants that essentially tell browser/search engines the same thing? I.e. should I send a lastmod header AND ETag AND maybe something else? Should I send a cache duration at all if I send a lastmod? (Assume that I can keep them correct and consistent as the data for each will come from the very same place.) Also: Are there any clear recommendations on what change-indicating method should be used? Thanks for your answers! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Redirecting a blog
We've acquired another company and want to redirect their soon-to-be-obsolete website to ours. It includes a blog with many blog posts. Should we: only 301 redirect the top level blog URL
Technical SEO | | Caro-O
try redirect individual blogs to blogs of a similar topic on our site (least practical I'm sure)
redirect all their individual posts to our main blog URL Thanks, Caro1 -
Are links still considered reciprocal if the link from one website is rel="nofollow" and the other isnt ?
Im working on a site that has some press coverage due in the next couple of days from quite a big site in the niche. The press outlet has requested that we link back to the content they post about us, they said the link can be rel="nofollow" if we'd prefer. Id really like to get the full benefit of the link back to our website, obviously if i did a straight link back to the 3rd party press site the links would be reciprocal and cancel each other out in terms of "link juice", but i was wandering if we make our link back to the 3rd party rel="nofollow" will we still get the full benefit of their link to us in terms of link juice ? ie. having the link back to them, but nofollow wouldn't been seen as a reciprocal link. ? (Obviously either way there is still benefit of having the link even if it reciprocal as it will send traffic to our site, but just no "link juice") Note - Ive used the phrase"Link Juice" for lack of a better term, any ideas on how else to refer to this ?
Technical SEO | | Sam-P1 -
Old Blog
I have an old blog that I started long ago and it has tons of content. I'm thinking about migrating it my current blog but am worried about panda and bringing over mediocre content. The content is fine, not bad not good. Should I bring it over or should I just delete the blog?
Technical SEO | | tylerfraser0 -
We have been hit with the "Doorway Page" Penalty - fixed the issue - Got MSG that will still do not meet guidelines.
I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES / NO
Technical SEO | | LVH
My site's URL (web address) is:www.recoveryconnection.org
Description (including timeline of any changes made): We were hit with the Doorway Pages penalty on 5/26/11. We have a team of copywriters, and a fast-working dev dept., so we were able to correct what we thought the problem was, "targeting one-keyword per page" and thin content. (according to Google) Plan of action: To consolidate "like" keywords/content onto pages that were getting the most traffic and 404d the pages with the thin content and that were targeting singular keywords per page. We submitted a board approved reconsideration request on 6/8/11 and received the 2nd message (below) on 6/16/11. ***NOTE:The site was originally designed by the OLD marketing team who was let go, and we are the NEW team trying to clean up their mess. We are now resorting to going through Google's general guidelines page. Help would be appreciated. Below is the message we received back. Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.recoveryconnection.org/, We received a request from a site owner to reconsider http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team Any help is welcome. Thanks0