Local Search: Technically optimised for Reviews & Stars, but not showing in SERPS
-
Hi,
for over a year now we actively use schema.org into our yellow pages platform.
Simultaneaously we managed to set up a review platform to attract more users to write reviews.We also monitor closely local search experts like (blumenthal and co ). So I learned in this post http://blumenthals.com/blog/2013/07/19/how-many-reviews-to-get-the-star-treatment-somewhere-between-4-and-5/ that it takes you 4-5 reviews to get the star treatment by Google.
But at this moment, I cannot find any star treatment. For example on this listing http://www.goudengids.be/hollywok-kortrijk-kortrijk-8500/1/ you can notice the presence of 6 review (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goudengids.be%2Fhollywok-kortrijk-kortrijk-8500%2F1%2F) but in Google itself it is not displayed as such.
So my question is: in your experience, are there any other parameters that will trigger the stars to appear?
-
Basically I learned that you cannot put schema markup in tags, everything is fixed now.
-
Hi,
I received an answer from the Google Rich Snippets Team. For the moment I cannot fully understand what this all means. Seems I'm hiding content, but not clear yet how. If any of you experts can help me out. I'll try to get an answer at google.
This is the mail i received this morning:
Hello Pieter,
Thank you for your interest in rich snippets for your site.Google can’t display rich snippets for your site goudengids.be because of the following issue(s):
Your content is marked up for rich snippets. But all the values of the attribute has been marked up under the content attribute. We allow the use of content attribute only when we need values in the machine readable format such as for currency. Please markup the actual content on the webpage.
Example URL:-http://www.goudengids.be/mort-subite-a-la-brussel-1000/#sayso-reviews
Markup Type: Review-aggregate
Hidden content:
http://schema.org/CafeOrCoffeeShop">http://schema.org/PostalAddress"> http://www.alamortsubite.com" />http://schema.org/AggregateRating">http://schema.org/Review">http://schema.org/Rating"> http://schema.org/Review">http://schema.org/Rating">
Once you have fixed your markup, run your pages through the rich snippets testing tool <http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets> to check for errors. When you’re all set, use the rich snippets submission form <http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/request.py?contact_type=rich_snippets_feedback>
to resubmit your site.
Thanks again,
Google Rich Snippets Team
-
Hi Goudengids,
Thank you for explaining that! I think some members may have assumed you were a local business owner hoping stars would show up from your single business website, but now you've clarified this. I have never worked with a YP site, hands on, but I think two things would be at play here.
-
That you've got correct markup on your individual pages. Use: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets to check if your markup is correct.
-
The authority of your pages, in Google's mind. Could there be any issues going on with duplicate content between goudengids.be and goldenpages.be? Typically, I see YP sites have a single domain with sub-sections for different languages, so the structure you are using is not what I'm used to seeing.
Also, how well you manage your review base may be a factor. For example, on a page like this one, I see 3 identical reviews: http://www.goudengids.be/qn/business/detail/en_BE_YP_PAID_248495_0000_76551_7575_2013000536113021/
You know how strict Yelp is with their filters and quality controls. Your YP might consider implementing stricter quality controls, too, in order to influence Google's 'trust' of your product.
Just some suggestions, and I do hope you will get a helpful answer at Google's support forum.
-
-
Hi Miriam,
we are the official belgian yellow pages website www;goudengids.be, with platform i was referring to our website.
-
Hi Goudengids,
Can you explain this in a little more detail:
"for over a year now we actively use schema.org into our yellow pages platform."
Do you mean you are running a yellow pages-type website? Or something else? More detail would be helpful, and it's good you've started a thread in the Google support forum. Some very smart folks there, for sure!
-
Hi, thx for the link to the support page.
I believe our markup is according the guidelines, no errors in the rich snippets tool, so therefore i posted the question on https://support.google.com/webmasters/contact/rich_snippets_feedback
I'll keep you posted if I receive any feedback.
-
In addition to Bereijk's answer, have you tried testing it with the Google Structured Data Testing Tool? http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets
-
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
-
Inurl: search shows results without keyword in URL
Hi there, While doing some research on the indexation status of a client I ran into something unexpected. I have my hypothesis on what might be happing, but would like a second opinion on this. The query 'site:example.org inurl:index.php' returns about 18.000 results. However, when I hover my mouse of these results, no index.php shows up in the URL. So, Google seems to think these (then duplicate content) URLs still exist, but a 301 has changed the actual goal URL? A similar things happens for inurl:page. In fact, all the 'index.php' and 'page' parameters were removed over a year back, so there in fact shouldn't be any of those left in the index by now. The dates next to the search results are 2005, 2008, etc. (i.e. far before 2013). These dates accurately reflect the times these forums topic were created. Long story short: are these ~30.000 'phantom URLs' in the index out of total of ~100.000 indexed pages hurting the search rankings in some way? What do you suggest to get them out? Submitting a 100% coverage sitemap (just a few days back) doesn't seem to have any effect on these phantom results (yet).
Technical SEO | | Theo-NL0 -
Site architecture & breadcrumbs
Hi A client hasn't structured site architecture in a silo type format so breadcrumbs are not predicating in a topical hierarchy as one would desire (or at least i think one would prefer) For example: say the site is called www.fruit.com and it has a category called 'types of fruit' and then sub/content pages called things like 'apples' and 'pears'. So in terms of architecture that should be: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/apples and www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/pears etc etc The client has kept it all flat so instead architecture is: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit and www.fruit.com/apples and www.fruit.com/pears As a result breadcrumbs follow suit and hence since also not employing logical predication dont reflect the topical & sub-topical hierarchy I have seen that some seo's at least used to think this was better for seo since kept the page/s nearer the root but surely its better to structure site architecture in a logical topical hierarchy so long as dont go beyond say 3 or 4 directories/forward slashes in the url's? Also is it theoretically possible to keep url structure as is (flat) and just edit/customise the breadcrumbs to reflect a topical hierarchy in a silo structure rather than change the entire site architecture & required 301'ing etc in order to do this (or is that misleading or just not possible?) Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Why is my site going from bad to worse in the SERPS?
I've been having issues ranking for the key word kayak fishing. At one point a few months ago I managed to get my site www.yakangler.com to page 2 but have since fallen back to page 20+. I thought it was because of keyword stuffing or over optimization so I made some tweaks to my home page and started to see a small daily rise but stopped at page 19. I have since slipped back to the top of page 24... What am I doing wrong? I don't employ any blackhat linking, I know I have some W3C validation errors on my home page "many caused by the facebook like button". Any ideas on how to improve my SERPS would be greatly appreciated. The most frustrating thing is comparing my site to the top Google searches for that key word... I should be doing fine definitely not page 24! Much gratitude in advance for any help you can offer!
Technical SEO | | mr_w0 -
Duplicate Content for our Advertising Sites Showing in Search Results
Hello, My company has a couple different sites (Magento Stores) for Organic, Adwords and AdCenter purposes.They are mirror sites of each except for phone number, contact form, ect. Here is our organic site: http://www.oxygenconcnetratorstore.com/ Adwords and Adcenter site respectively: http://www.oxygenconcnetratorstore.com/portable/
Technical SEO | | chuck-layton
http://www.oxygenconcnetratorstore.com/oxygen/ The problem is, both the Adwords and AdCenter stores appear in Google SERP when you put in the exact URL. I have "noindex/nofollow" tag on both the advertising sites but they are still showing in search results. I feel we are getting hurt for basically have 3 sites of duplicate content. Is there a reason why the sites would be showing in search results even with the nofollow/index tags?? Any help would be awesome. Thanks. seomoz.jpg0 -
Get iTunes SERP
Hi, I would really like to understnad how iTunes (apple) get those great serp in google (see attached image). In addition to the image (which is the main thing I would love to get) they have price, rating and votes numbers. Currently I know about the schema.org tags that can help implement that but I couldn't find this in the source code of the page. Thanx itunes-serp 20120102-gmpk3ih8492w52tbsrrpy573w4.jpg
Technical SEO | | WixSeoTeam0 -
My domain does not come in the search results, what do I do?
Hi, I have a website called www.bollykings.com It had a pretty solid rank on google for a number of keywords but 4-5 months back, it was badly affected by the Panda update. Now it comes nowhere. I have started updating and posting new articles on it since the last two months. When I search for "bollykings" on Google.com, website does not come only in the first 40 results. What could this mean?
Technical SEO | | modifyed0 -
What Google uses in search result descriptions
Recently, Google has started including certain information from our web pages in their search results description that is a bit puzzling. For example if you google 'Wedding Band Raleigh' the description they are using for our site's (GigMasters) page begins with the text 'Results 1 - 10 of 1005' Not sure why they are pulling that information. That is in on the page but its not high up on the page or marked with any special h1, h2, or h3 tag. We do have that information inside of a div which we have named 'Results'. Maybe that's why? Did we inadvertently use some sort of Google rich snippet or schema.org naming convention?! Any insight would be hugely appreciated.
Technical SEO | | gigmasters0 -
Javascript funtion as link? Why not show up?
We joined our Chamber of Commerce for the "link" as much as anything. After 9 months of having a link from our local chamber it has never showed up anywhere. You can see the link on my Chambers page, and you can click on it and it works. But it does not show up anywhere else....Not in any backlink checker, not in SEOmoz, not in Google Webmaster Tools. When I hover over our link on their page I see "javascript:encodeclick........my url" Is this link worth anything? What is a javascriptencodeclick? Does Google know it exists and give me credit for it? Our Chamber is clueless... they hire someone to do their website. Their webmasters response to my question was: Hi, These links look like this because this is just the way our system parses URLs that are entered into the membership directory so they can be clickable when displayed in the lister. These links will not have a negative effect on Google or SEO indexing purposes if that is what you are concerned about. They are not encoded or encrypted, this just happens to be the name of the Javascript function.
Technical SEO | | SCyardman0