Data-vocabulary.org for structured markup in 2019
-
Hi MOZ friends,
One of our clients has used data-vocabulary.org for structured markup.
Schema.org says:
"If you are already publishing structured data markup and it is already being used by Google, Microsoft, Yandex or Yahoo!, the markup format will generally continue to be supported. Changing to the new markup format could be helpful over time because you will be switching to a standard that is accepted across several companies, but you don't have to do it."
Although there is such statement, as schema.org is the common vocabulary in 2019, should I keep it or change it with schema.org?
Thanks in advance!
-
Thank you very much for the answer Martijn.
-
If you have the resources available and don't have many other priorities. It could be worth it to switch over, but honestly, if I would be in the situation and have many other things to change as well I wouldn't make this a priority. In the end, you're already benefiting from most of the upsides with data-vocabulary and Schema.org isn't going to get you much more. It will likely be a good thing for the future to move over as most of the new extensions are becoming available for Schema.org, but if you have very little upside I wouldn't make the migration right away.
-
Not sure how you run your agency or whatever but generally for changes like this I like to "task" them out. Meaning that I will always move to the preferred version of things over time. Let's say your client has 500 pages, can you do 50 pages a month with the correct version of schema? Start with the most important pages on the site and move from there. If you can't get to the pages that need updated in month three, you'll still be ok. I think the search engines will be able to read the data regardless but always like to move towards the preferred version of things. It's a "best practice" in a way. Just organize the pages by either traffic, importance, or relevance and go from there. No need to rush it. But definitely something I would move towards.
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
-
Folders in url structure?
Hello, Revamping an out-of-date website and am wondering if I need to include the folders (categories) in the url structure? The proposed structure has 8 main folders. I've been reading that Google is ok if the folder is not included in the url, but is it really? The hesitation I have is that the urls are getting long and the main folder only has only a sub folder beneath it. So, /folder-name/facility-name/treatment-overview. This looks too long, doesn't it? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | lfrazer1230 -
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 -
Spammy structured data for http://www.heritageprinting.com/ might be dropped from search results
We received the above message, which I'm see may also have. Before I go making hours of edits can someone give me an opinion on what may need fixed? Here's a link to one of our products: http://heritageprinting.com/products/step-and-repeat.phpAll products are uniquely marked upIt may be the $ dollar sign, but I'm not certain.Looking at WMT > Search Appearance > Structured Data, I see no errors for Schema Markup. TY in advance :)KJr
Technical SEO | | KevnJr0 -
What directory should a site go in (url structure)?
Hi All, The is the first actual SEO campaign i've worked on and I had a few question about where the site should live on the server and url structure. The site is in WP and we're using Yoast SEO. Anyway the site lives in a a folder called Coastal, which is a child of the WWW folder. So the permalink of the homepage is mcoastalwindows.com/coastal/. The URL is mycoastalwindows.com. The thing is I can still get to the homepage or any of the pages on the site by typing in the /coastal/. Another example is permalink mycoastalwndows.com/coastal/siding/ and url mycoastalwindows.com/siding/. The urls always display without the /coastal/, so I'm not too worried about people linking to them, but Yoast puts a canonical element to the permalink and always includes the /coastal/. Also I'm seeing that Google displays a lot of the urls with the /coastal/, which is an issue seeing as we don't link to the pages that way. My original thought was to solve this at the source and just move everything out of the coastal directory, but the developer swears that it's more secure being in another folder especially with WP. What would you all do and what is best practice? Would you move everything out of the coastal folder, 301 re-direct, do something with. htaccess, or another solution? Appreciate the input thanks!
Technical SEO | | Mario.Souza0 -
Open Site Explorer - Link Data still not available
Hi, I still cant get access to any data for the URL www.attraction-tickets-direct.co.uk/walt-disney-world-orlando-tickets We changed this URL over two month ago and your site explains that it takes up to this amount of time to start getting data. This is really annoying as we would like this information for us to do a competitor anaylsis. Any idea when we should start recieving this? thanks
Technical SEO | | SEOConrad0 -
SEO impact of overseas data center
Hi there, I currently host a number of sites from data centers in the UK and Hong Kong but now have the need to develop a site specifically for an Australian audience. While our server in Hong Kong can probably provide an acceptably fast service to Australia i'm concerned that its location outside of Australia will negatively affect our local SEO efforts. Am i right to be concerned about this? Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dave
Technical SEO | | evidentlydavidm0 -
Source code structure: Position of content within the tag
Within the section of the source code of a site I work on, there are a number of distinct sections. The 1st one, appearing first in the source code, contains the code for the primary site navigation tabs and links. The second contains the keyword-rich page content. My question is this: if i could fix the layout so that the page still visually displayed in the same way as it does now, would it be advantageous for me to stick the keyword-rich content section at the top of the , above the navigation? I want the search engines to be able to reach the keyword-rich content faster when they crawl pages on the site; however, I dont want to implement this fix if it wont have any appreciable benefit; nor if it will be harmful to the search-engine's accessibilty to my primary navigation links. Does anyone have any experience of this working, or thoughts on whether it will make a difference? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Does it matter if my domain has a .com .org. net extention?
Hi, Does the domain extention ie. .com .org. net effect the chances of me ranking in search engines. Is there a prefrence or does it not matter? Thanks Yaser
Technical SEO | | yaser0