Received A Notice Regarding Spammy Structured Data. But we don't have any structured data or do we?
-
Got a message that we have spammy structured data on our site via webmaster tools and have no idea what they are referring to. We do not use any structured data using schema.org mark up. Could they be referring to something else?
The message was:
To: Webmaster of <a>http://www.lulus.com/</a>,
Google has detected structured markup on some of your pages that violates our structured data quality guidelines. In order to ensure quality search results for users, we display rich search results only for content that uses markup that conforms to our quality guidelines. This manual action has been applied to lulus.com/ . We suggest that you fix your markup and file a reconsideration request. Once we determine that the markup on the pages is compliant with our guidelines, we will remove this manual action.
What could we be showing them that would be interpreted as structured data, and or spammy structured data?
-
It's highly unlikely you'd get a manual penalty for incorrect Open Graph markup (especially since Google itslef doesn't use it for anything.)
Instead of trying to test one-off pages with the data testing tool, have a look in your Google Search Console under the Search Appearance > Structured Data report. Here you'll see what Google's crawler thinks about the structured markup on all the pages of your site it is able to crawl. Much better chance that the crawler has caught and reported it than that you'll find it checking one page at a time.
One of the really common types of markup that earned manual penalties recently was recipes (due to certain plugins not implementing it correctly.) Since your site doesn't include recipes, the other area to check closely is reviews/ratings. If Google thinks you're trying to use these manipulatively, they'll slap you hard, since these actually generate rich snippets in SERPS.
In the brief look I had at your site, it didn't appear your reviews/rating were using markup, but that's where an exhaustive check using the GSC report would be vastly more effective than my cursory check.
Hope that all makes sense? Good luck!
Paul
-
Thank you for your insight the data testing tool is very helpful.
https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/
- Kent
-
Hello,
I think whatever opengraph plugin you are using on your pages might be causing the issue. Take a look at: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/0/#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lulus.com%2Fcategories%2F13%2Fdresses.html
On a semi-related note, your og:image tag is missing 'og:image:width' and 'og:image:height'.
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
-
How to remove spammy backlink from my webpage?
Hi Professionals, Someone create spammy backlinks in my website. How to remove spammy backlinks from my community "Sewways" company website? Please guide me to solve my this problem, because my website is D-Rank according to that backlinks. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Smartlanjabdul0 -
Landing pages showing up as HTTPS when we haven't made the switch
Hi Moz Community, Recently our tech team has been taking steps to switch our site from http to https. The tech team has looked at all SEO redirect requirements and we're confident about this switch, we're not planning to roll anything out until a month from now. However, I recently noticed a few https versions of our landing pages showing up in search. We haven't pushed any changes out to production yet so this shouldn't be happening. Not all of the landing pages are https, only a select few and I can't see a pattern. This is messing up our GA and Search Console tracking since we haven't fully set up https tracking yet because we were not expecting some of these pages to change. HTTPS has always been supported on our site but never indexed so it's never shown up in the search results. I looked at our current site and it looks like landing page canonicals are already pointing to their https version, this may be the problem. Anyone have any other ideas?
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Any SEO-wizards out there who can tell me why Google isn't following the canonicals on some pages?
Hi, I am banging my head against the wall regarding the website of a costumer: In "duplicate title tags" in GSC I can see that Google is indexing a whole bunch parametres of many of the url's on the page. When I check the rel=canonical tag, everything seems correct. My costumer is the biggest sports retailer in Norway. Their webshop has approximately 20 000 products. Yet they have more than 400 000 pages indexed by Google. So why is Google indexing pages like this? What is missing in this canonical?https://www.gsport.no/herre/klaer/bukse-shorts?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=descWhy isn't Google just cutting off the ?type-bukser-334=regnbukser&order=price&dir=desc part of the url?Can it be the canonical-tag itself, or could the problem be somewhere in the CMS? Looking forward to your answers Sigurd
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
Duplicate content warning for a hierarchy structure?
I have a series of pages on my website organized in a hierarchy, let's simplify it to say parent pages and child pages. Each of the child pages has product listings, and an introduction at the top (along with an image) explaining their importance, why they're grouped together, providing related information, etc.
Technical SEO | | westsaddle
The parent page has a list of all of its child pages and a copy of their introductions next to the child page's title and image thumbnail. Moz is throwing up duplicate content warnings for all of these pages. Is this an actual SEO issue, or is the warning being overzealous?
Each child page has tons of its own content, and each parent page has the introductions from a bunch of child pages, so any single introduction is never the only content on the page. Thanks in advance!0 -
How to get out of Google's sendbox
Hello, i posted this question before here in forum, that 2 of my pages were sendboxed but never had a clear answer on how to get them back up, i do know that i need to build high quality backlinks pointing to those pages, but where do i start? Thanks
Technical SEO | | tonyklu0 -
Carl errors on urls that don't normally exist
Hi, I have been having heaps (thousands) of SEOMoz crawl errors on urls that don't exist normally like: mydomain.com/RoomAvailability.aspx?DateFrom=2012-Oct-26&rcid=-1&Nights=2&Adults=1&Children=0&search=BestPrice These urls are missing siteids and other parameters and I can't see how they are gererated. Does anyone have any ideas on where MOZ is finding them ? Thanks Stephen
Technical SEO | | digmarketingguy0 -
301'ing googlebot
I have a client that has been 301’ing googlebot to the canonical page. This is because they have a cart_id and session parameters in urls. This is mainly from when googlebot comes in on a link that has these parameters in the URL, as they don’t serve these parameters up to googlebot at all once it starts to crawl the site.
Technical SEO | | AlanMosley
I am worried about cloaking; I wanted to know if anyone has any info on this.
I know that Google have said that doing anything where you detect goolgebots useragent and treat them different is a problem.
Anybody had any experience on this, I would be glad to hear.0 -
Ignore url parameters without the 'parameter=' ?
We are working on an ecommerce site that sorts out the products by color and size but doesn't use the sortby= but uses sortby/. Can we tell Google to ignore the sortby/ parameter in Webmaster Tools even though it is not followed by an = sign? For example: www.mysite.com/shirts/tshirts/shopby/size-m www.mysite.com/shirts/tshirts/shopby/color-black Can we tell WMT to ignore the 'shopby/' parameter so that only the tshirts page will be indexed? Or does the shopby have to be set up as 'shopby=' ? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan0