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
-
Schema.org implementation for physician's office vs physician herself?
Hi, Regarding schema.org microdata, which page(s) should have the microdata? 1) http://schema.org/Physician -- appears to be about the office. Since we have all of the contact/address info in the footer on each page, should we do the same with microdata? I can't seem to find a suggested implementation on schema.org Assuming an office has multiple MDs, how should the docs be listed since the physician schema appears to be for the office, not for the individual doctors? Thanks for any insight!
Technical SEO | | Titan5520 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Change in url structure - added category page
I have recently started an e-commerce website and have now changed the url structure and added another level to my category pages. So where it before was www.website.com/shirts it is now www.website.com/clothes/shirts. So I added the clothes category (just an example) before the shirt category and am now finding that the old url is still found in the search index and is still live on my site. How could this be? I use wordpress and simply change the urls in the backend. The products are still under www.website.com/product/blue-shirt-123 so they won't be affected but I suppose it now means I have duplicate category pages? So my question is: Should I 301 the the old category page (www.website.com/shirts)to the new url (www.website.com/clothes/shirts). And how can the old url still be live on my site? If this was a bit unclear, please let me know. Appreciate your replies!
Technical SEO | | bitte0 -
Determine the best URL structure
Hi guys, I'm working my way through a URL restructure at the moment and I've several ideas about the best way to do it. However, it would be good to get some views on this. At the moment I'm working on a property website - http://bit.ly/N7eew7 As you can quickly see, the URL structure of the site needs a lot of work. Similar websites - http://bit.ly/WXH5WG http://bit.ly/Q3UiLC One of the sites has http://www.domain.ie/property-to-let/location/ And the other has http://www.domain.ie/rentals/location/property-to-let/ I could do with some guidance about the best steps to take with this. I've a few ideas myself but this is a massive project. Cheers, Mark
Technical SEO | | MarkScully0 -
My webmaster doesn't shows backlinks data why???
Hi every one I have 2 websites with same domain with targeting different country name for example www.domain.com.au and the other is wwww.domain.co.nz . So my question is that in webmaster tool my one domain doesn't shows back links data or search query data. why this is happen?
Technical SEO | | SanketPatel0 -
Optimal Structure for Forum Thread URL
For getting forum threads ranked, which is best and why? site.com**/topic/**thread-title-goes-here site.com**/t/**thread-title-goes-here site.com**/**thread-title-goes-here I'd take comfort in knowing that SEOmoz uses the middle version, except that "q" is more meaningful to a human than "t". The last option seems like the best bet overall, except that users could potentially steal urls that I may want to use in the future. My old structure was site.com/forum/topic/TOPIC_ID-thread-title-goes-here so obviously any of those would be a vast improvement, but I might as well make the best choice now so I only have to change once.
Technical SEO | | PatrickGriffith0 -
Internal Linking Structure - help Req'd
I have a website that due to the way in which it was put together a few years back always redirects to a /subdomain folder when the top level domain is entered. When analysing the new SERPS tool i spotted that when the .com domain was assessed it didn't pick up the internal links that were pointing to the /subdomain. Q) Could the /redirect cause a problem when crawled by Google, and if i'm linking back to the homepage should i be using the domain or the subdomain as the link (even though one redirects to the other......)
Technical SEO | | NSJ780 -
Is robots.txt a must-have for 150 page well-structured site?
By looking in my logs I see dozens of 404 errors each day from different bots trying to load robots.txt. I have a small site (150 pages) with clean navigation that allows the bots to index the whole site (which they are doing). There are no secret areas I don't want the bots to find (the secret areas are behind a Login so the bots won't see them). I have used rel=nofollow for internal links that point to my Login page. Is there any reason to include a generic robots.txt file that contains "user-agent: *"? I have a minor reason: to stop getting 404 errors and clean up my error logs so I can find other issues that may exist. But I'm wondering if not having a robots.txt file is the same as some default blank file (or 1-line file giving all bots all access)?
Technical SEO | | scanlin0