Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Correct use of schema for online store and physical stores
-
I have been getting conflicting advice on the best way to implement schema for the following scenario.
There is a central e-commerce store that is registered to it's own unique address which is "head office". There are a few physical shops each of which has their own location and address. Each shop has its own landing page within /our-stores/.
So each page on the website has the Organisation schema for the central 'organisation', something like:
Then on each physical store landing page is something like the following as well as the Organisation schema:
Is this correct? If it is should I extend LocalBusiness with store URL and sameAs for GMB listing and maybe Companies House registration?
It's also been suggested that we should use LocalBusiness for the head office of the company, then Departmentwith the typeStore. But i'm not sure on that?
-
The head office happens to be the e-commerce store. Then there are actual physical stores that sell the same products physically.
So we do want visibility for 'HQ' as the main 'entity'. Yes if anyone has a problem they contact the shop or HQ/e-commerce store. So with that in mind I still need clarification of the schema to use.
-
Google state here:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/local-business
That "Local Business" is what they use. "Organization" does not appear in that list
Think about what you want to achieve. Utilising schema helps contact details (and many other, granular pieces of information) to jump out for brand, or entity-based queries
If you have a head office which you're working on, aren't most of the queries to HQ internal? Do you really want people calling up HQ instead of going to one of the purpose-built, consumer outlets? Obviously if you're looking to ascertain a mixture of B2B and B2C leads, what I'm saying might not quite be accurate
In most circumstances, I wouldn't want work-offices (HQ) to be more visible in Google's search results, so I would eradicate all schema. Then I'd just go with LocalBusiness schema for all the outlets
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
-
Who is correct - please help!
I have a website with a lot of product pages - often thousands of pages. As each of these pages is for a specific lease car they are often only fractionally different from other pages. The urls are too long, the H1 is often too long and the Title is often too long for "SEO best practice". And they do create duplication issues according to MOZ. Some people tell me to change them to noindex/nofollow whilst others tell me to leave them as they are as best not to hide from google crawler. Any advice will be gratefully received. Thanks for listening.
Technical SEO | | jlhitch0 -
Does using a canonical with ?utm_source=gmb cause any issues?
All of our URLs in Google My Business are tagged with ?utm_source=gmb. This way when people click on it within a Google Map listing, knowledge graph, etc we know it came from there. I'm assuming using a canonical on all ?_utm_source _pages (we have others, including some in the index) won't cause any problems with this, correct? Since they're not technically traditional organic SERPs? Dumb question I know, but better safe than sorry. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Alces1 -
Using 410 To Remove URLs Starting With Same Word
We had a spam injection a few months ago. We successfully cleaned up the site and resubmitted to google. I recently received a notification showing a spike in 404 errors. All of the URLS have a common word at the beginning injected via the spam: sitename.com/mono
Technical SEO | | vikasnwu
sitename.com/mono.php?buy-good-essays
sitename.com/mono.php?professional-paper-writer There's about 100 total URLS with the same syntax with the word "mono" in them. Based on my research, it seems that it would be best to serve a 410. I wanted to know what the line of HTACCESS code would be to do that in bulk for any URL that has the word "mono" after the sitename.com/0 -
Does the use of a unicode character high up on page adversely affect SEO?
I work for a company in the travel industry and we are currently in the process of building out a 360-degree video landing page to inspire travel to our destination. There is some desire from individuals on my team to use the unicode degree symbol ( ° ) after 360 to ensure clarity. We currently have the ° symbol in the Page Title and H1 tag. Does the use of a unicode character adversely affect SEO? Our concern is that it is very unlikely that people are searching for 360-degree videos using the unicode symbol. We also have it fully written out as well. Just want to make sure we won't get dinged for this. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | smontunnas1 -
Canonical homepage link uses trailing slash while default homepage uses no trailing slash, will this be an issue?
Hello, 1st off, let me explain my client in this case uses BigCommerce, and I don't have access to the backend like most other situations. So I have to rely on BG to handle certain issues. I'm curious if there is much of a difference using domain.com/ as the canonical url while BG currently is redirecting our domain to domain.com. I've been using domain.com/ consistently for the last 6 months, and since we switches stores on Friday, this issue has popped up and has me a bit worried that we'll loose somehow via link juice or overall indexing since this could confuse crawlers. Now some say that the domain url is fine using / or not, as per - https://moz.com/community/q/trailing-slash-and-rel-canonical But I also wanted to see what you all felt about this. What says you?
Technical SEO | | Deacyde0 -
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 -
Using Schema.org: Product or Event as the schema type?
Hello, Most of you heard from the launch of the new format for microdata: Schema.org and my question is about the different types of Schema they provide. Our websites provide an overview of courses, visitors can search/filter training courses and most important: read peer reviews. Until now we formatted (the source) of those courses with the schema type "Product" because it allows us to provide search engines with metadata about reviews via the "Aggregrated Rating". Recently we updated the information about courses, to also provide start dates and locations to users, just like the schema type for: "Events". Because we would like to provide search engines also with both types of data I would like to know your opinion. Schema.org looks like not to support the Aggregated Rating for Events and vice versa for Startdates/Locations for the Product type. And combining the two Schema types also does not looks like an option because we can't put them on the same level like it should be. So what would you recommend to use for kind of schema type(s), are we able to use the 'Product' type next to the 'Event' type and so to combine them? Thanks a lot!
Technical SEO | | Martijn_Scheijbeler0 -
Using a third party server to host site elements
Hi guys - I have a client who are recently experiencing a great deal of more traffic to their site. As a result, their web development agency have given them a server upgrade to cope with the new demand. One thing they have also done is put all website scripts, CSS files, images, downloadable content (such as PDFs) - onto a 3rd party server (Amazon S3). Apparently this was done so that my clients server just handles the page requests now - and all other elements are then grabbed from the Amazon s3 server. So basically, this means any HTML content and web pages are still hosted through my clients domain - but all other content is accessible through an Amazon s3 server URL. I'm wondering what SEO implications this will have for my clients domain? While all pages and HTML content is still accessible thorugh their domain name, each page is of course now making many server calls to the Amazon s3 server through external URLs (s3.amazonaws.com). I imagine this will mean any elements sitting on the Amazon S3 server can no longer contribute value to the clients SEO profile - because that actual content is not physically part of their domain anymore. However what I am more concerned about is whether all of these external server calls are going to have a negative effect on the web pages value overall. Should I be advising my client to ensure all site elements are hosted on their own server, and therefore all elements are accessible through their domain? Hope this makes sense (I'm not the best at explaining things!)
Technical SEO | | zealmedia0
