My guess is that Google is recognizing a branded entity in these types of searches but I'd also guess that mentions play into it.

Ahh - I see what the goal is. I wouldn't worry about Google penalizing you, however for search purposes a hashtag may not perform as well as the word itself. The URL shouldn't cause trouble either.

In general, I wouldn't bother doing this, unless Pinterest is a very significant aspect of your marketing strategy.

Kyle is correct that you can't directly tell Google to start adding these to your search results. The ones you pointed out in your screenshot are functionally the same as traditional sitelinks like the one shown at the top of this Google Webmaster guide: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=47334

Here is a direct quote from the full Google Webmaster comments on sitelinks. I have highlighted in bold what you can do to encourage these to show up on your search results:

"We only show sitelinks for results when we think they'll be useful to the user. If the structure of your site doesn't allow our algorithms to find good sitelinks, or we don't think that the sitelinks for your site are relevant for the user's query, we won't show them.

At the moment, sitelinks are automated. We're always working to improve our sitelinks algorithms, and we may incorporate webmaster input in the future. There are best practices you can follow, however, to improve the quality of your sitelinks. For example, for your site's internal links, make sure you use anchor text and alt text that's informative, compact, and avoids repetition.

If you think that a sitelink URL is inappropriate or incorrect, you can demote it. Demoting a URL for a sitelink tells Google that you don't consider this URL a good sitelink candidate for a specific page on your site. Google doesn't guarantee that demoted URLs will never appear as a sitelink, but we do consider a demotion a strong hint that we'll try to honor when generating sitelinks."

I would also use ProfessionalService, which is a subset of the LocalBusiness item:

http://schema.org/ProfessionalService

http://reverseinternet.com/analytics/5670334 is showing that GA code being used on 4 domains. 2 have apollo in the name and redirect to the main site. A random 4th one called deltapoint24.com doesn't appear to have the GA code on the homepage, and throws a 404 when you add /india/ to the url.

I would also check the hostname as Mike suggested.

Hi Rogerio,

mememax is correct in that the content won't be counted the way you're hoping. You can use an iframe embed code with a link outside of it, however:

<iframe></iframe>

Built by Brand Name.

This will not count the links inside of the iframe, however, but it's another option if you're trying to embed dynamic content of some kind.

The references listed by Branagan and Mike are good. I have personally seen Google Webmaster Tools list external links that were simply URL citations without a <a href="">tag involved, so Google absolutely looks at these and probably factors them in to the algorithm somehow. I'm fairly certain there is no answer to how much they count compared to a normal link and what value they pass.</a>

<a href="">It's pretty easy to reach out and ask the author to add a link. Just be really nice about it and there's a 50% chance you'll get it. If not, no worries, move on and acquire some new links. Unfortunately it comes with the territory. We had a client get their domain mentioned on PCWorld.com last month without a backlink. It sucks, but all you can do is ask nicely and hope they throw you a bone.</a>

Hey Sri,

Multiple Images on the Same Page:

In a single blog post that has many images, ideally you will want different alt text for each image.

For example, a page of content talking about chocolate donuts might have three images:

• chocolate-donuts.jpg (appropriate alt text would be "chocolate donuts")
• chocolate-donuts-and-coffee-mug.jpg (appropriate alt text could be "chocolate donuts next to a coffee mug" or could also be "chocolate donuts and coffee")
• chocolate-donut-shop-los-angeles.jpg (appropriate alt text would be "Jimmy's donut shop located in Los Angeles")

Hashtags:

Regarding the use of hashtags, I don't see a point to doing this. While a quick test of "donuts" versus "#donuts" in Google image search is showing me different results, I don't think there's enough keyword volume for the hashtag version of any word to both doing this.

That said, you can write whatever you want inside the alt tag, it just won't provide much benefit in my opinion. All of the following are technically fine, however #1 is the only one I would use:

For the same reasons, I don't see a point in using a hashtag in the <title> <em>unless</em> you're trying to target search queries for that exact hashtag.</p> <p> </p> <p>Hope that answered your questions but please let me know if I can clarify anything.</p></title>

I'm not familiar with it. Some decent info on it at http://semanticweb.com/schema-org-adds-additional-type-property_b30861, but not sure if that's helpful.

So, those are attributes for Things and then Places (a subset of Things). Because of that, they apply to subcategories. The current Schema.org structure apparently does not add any new attributes for Residences or Apartment Complexes. Obviously that may not be right, but I've seen this in other Schema.org categories that are missing attributes that would make sense to have.

http://schema.org/ApartmentComplex is going to be the correct formatting to use. That includes an implicit relationship to the Place markup based upon containedIn.

The number of apartments/suites/etc won't affect the Schema markup, as long as everything is on the same street  number (e.g. 1234 Oak St).

However if the complex contains multiple buildings with separated street numbers (e.g. 1234 Oak St as well as 1237 Oak St) then that may affect your approach. In that event I'd probably choose the building that the rental office is located in (assuming that's onsite), and this is also going to have to match the address you're using for all of your citations across the internet.