Video SEO <video:uploader>sitemap optional tag for Google+</video:uploader>
-
Anyone know the specifics or using the video:uploaderoptional tag for Google+ for rel=”author” attribution. for video sitemap?</video:uploader>
Related post has some info, but no specific example.
http://www.distilled.net/blog/video/getting-video-results-in-google/
Quote from above link: "Good practice is to ensure that the
video:uploaderelement links to a Google+ profile or a blog profile
page with rel=”author” attribution. "</video:uploader>This is what it seems it should look like in the video sitemap:
<video:uploader info="<a href=" https:="" plus.google.com="" 111123738944093379428"="" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/111123738944093379428">Bill
Alderson</video:uploader>If you know this works and is worth editing video sitmaps to add the optional tag, let me know your experience.
Alternately, my site (and each page, thanks to Yoast SEO for WP) does have the rel="author" linked to Google+ for every page, which may make the sitemap entry moot, but I have not yet seen this work in that manner. If you know it does or does not work, please let me know.
Please let me know if you have any better information or specific experience.
Also, if I elect to edit my sitemaps (provided by Wistia.com and BitsontheRun) to include this tag, what XML Sitemap Tool might work well to add these tags properly? Seems there is lots of XML Sitemap tools, but few really address Video Sitemap options specifically.
Thanks,
-
Hi Bill,
I wrote the article you mentioned, so should hopefully be able to help you out!
When I wrote that post in March, I managed to get a secondary authorship rich snippet on a video result through what i could only pin down to tagging a G+ profile as the uploader element, in spite of Google saying that the uploader profile must be on the same domain. http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=80472#1
Since the flurry of updates earlier this year, this doesn't seem to work any more and indeed, It feels like Google are settling on only providing a single rich snippet for a given result - unless there is the added "+1'd by someone in your Google+ profiles". the standard Rel=author box has also been reduced in size and if you receive multiple results from the same site, then you seemingly now only get one result with authorship mark-up and then the remaining links below.
The main reason for my original recommendation was the possibility of a second rich snippet, with tha "mini-authorship" display which Google were seemingly offering at the time in conjunction with other snippets.
Since this has now seemingly been canned, the recommendation is essentially defunct and so I therefore now Linking video:uploader to a profile on the domain such as http://www.yourdomain.com/blog/author/bill-alderson/ which I imagine will be correct if you're using WP and Yoast's plugin. However, I wouldn't expect adding the uploader element to return anything specifically for you at the moment, given the way rich snippets currently stand.</video:uploader>
I have updated the blog post to match this advice.
Having rel=author to each page on your site wont affect the way Google read your sitemap, but it may mean that Google elect to show the non-preferential Rich snippet for your page, dependent on the search results. I have seen instances where this has happened on an ecommerce platform with a plethora of schema markup and Google then return authored results for product pages, rather than the ideal star rich snippets.
As long as you have the Page locaton Thumbnail, Title, Description, Content_loc (for .mpg, .mov, .mwv, .mp4 files) or Player_loc for .swf files then Google should have all the info they need to provide rich snippets. Anything above this is ultimately a luxury and if you're relying on automated tools to create the sitemap as you have a large bank of video content - then in honesty, I probably wouldn't worry too much about it.
I am yet to find a decent video sitemap generation tool, so am actually currently in the process of building one. The Wistia sitemap generator you mentioned should do the job just fine for you in the meanwhile.
Cheers,
Phil
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
-
Duplicate Content on Product Pages with Canonical Tags
Hi, I'm an SEO Intern for a third party wine delivery company and I'm trying to fix the following issue with the site regarding duplicate content on our product pages: Just to give you a picture of what I'm dealing with, the duplicate product pages that are being flagged have URLs that have different Geo-variations and Product-Key Variations. This is what Moz's Site Crawler is seeing as Duplicate content for the URL www.example.com/wines/dry-red/: www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g123456 www.example.com/wines/dry-red/_/N-g456789 www.example.com/wines/California/_/N-0 We have loads of product pages with dozens of duplicate content and I'm coming to the conclusion that its the product keys that are confusing google. So we had the web development team put the canonical tag on the pages but still they were being flagged by google. I checked the of the pages and found that all the pages that had 2 canonical tags I understand we should only have one canonical tag in the so I wanted to know if I could just easily remove the second canonical tag and will it solve the duplicate content issue we're currently having? Any suggestions? Thanks -Drew
Algorithm Updates | | drewstorys0 -
Meta Descriptions - Google ignores what we have
Hi I still write meta descriptions to help with CTR. I am currently looking at a page where the CTR needs improving. I check the meta on Google SERPs & it isn't pulling through the meta description we have - but other info on the page. This isn't ideal - why does this happen? Will Google just make the decision and are descriptions not worth writing?
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
Google Open Graph
Hi I wanted to find out what makes Google select a site to show the answer to a question you type in search? For example, typing What is COSHH, brings up this site http://rospaworkplacesafety.com/2013/01/08/what-is-coshh-about-coshh/ and this answer top of Google SERPs. COSHH stands for 'Control of Substances Hazardous to Health' and under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, employers need to either prevent or reduce their workers' exposure to substances that are hazardous to their health.8 Jan 2013 Is it their open graph mark up only? Becky
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
Any SEO thoughts about Google's new Data Highlighter for products?
After searching around on the web for a while I couldn't find any case studies or interesting posting about Google's new feature to highlight structured data. In Google Webmaster Tools you can now tag your products to be displayed as structured data in Google's search results. Two questions that rose immediately: 1. What effect will Google's new Data Hightlighter for products have on your SEO? Can we expect better CTR's for productspage results in Google? Better conversion rates perhaps? Any case studies that show KPI improvements after using structured data for products? 2. I would love to see some examples in the search results to see what productpages would look like after Data Highlighting it. Your thoughts or input about this subject will be much appreciated.
Algorithm Updates | | SDIM0 -
Am I the only one experiencing this Google SERP problem?
I perform Google searches every single day, sometimes several times in a day. These searches have nothing to do with being a marketer--they're simply as a consumer, researcher, person who needs a question answered, or in other words: a typical person. For about the past month or so, I have been unsuccessful at finding what I'm looking for on the first try EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yes, I mean it--every single time. I'm left either going all the way to the third page, clicking dozens of results and retuning to the SERPs, or having to start over with a differently worded query. This is far too often to be a coincidence. Has this been happening to anymore else? I know there was a recent significant algorithm update, right? I always look at algorithm updates through the eyes of an SEO, but I'm currently looking at it through the eyes for an average searcher, and I'm frustrated! It's been like trying to find something on Bing!
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept0 -
Authorship Tag
Hi Guys - I asked this Q, on the comments of Joost's blog post on this topic - repeating here, in case I don't get an answer. I have a question of the rel=author tag. Will Google attach the authorship, even if the Google+ profile is a Company page, and not a personal profile? The mugshot on the profile, is basically our logo - not a personal photo. What's the best way to make use of authorship markup, in a case like this? Thanks!! Zak
Algorithm Updates | | ZakD1 -
Google has indexed a lot of test pages/junk from the development days.
With hind site I understand that this could have been avoided if robots.txt was configured properly. My website is www.clearvisas.com, and is indexed with both the www subdomain and with out. When I run site:clearvisas.com in Google I get 1,330 - All junk from the development days. But when I run site:www.clearvisas.com in Google I get 66 - these results all post development and more in line with what I wanted to be indexed. Will 1,330 junk pages hurt my seo? Is it possible to de-index them and should I? If the answer is yes to any of the questions how should I proceed? Kind regards, Fuad
Algorithm Updates | | Fuad_YK0 -
Is URL appearance defined by crawling or by XML sitemap
I am having a problem developing a sitemap because I have long URLs that are made by zend. They go like this: http://myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661/social-workers/pennsylvania-civi-stanger Because these URL's are long and are fed by Zend when I try to call them all up, to put on the sitemap, the system runs out of memory and crashes. Do you know what part of a search result, in google, say, comes from the URL? Would it be fine for me to submit to google only www.myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661. Does the crawler find that the URL is indeed http://myagingfolks.com/professionals/20661/social-workers/pennsylvania-civi-stanger or does it go with just what the sitemap tells it?
Algorithm Updates | | Jordanrg0