I am a beginner in Structure Data Markup and I want to know if I did it well
-
message removed.
-
Hi Leebi,
As you probably noticed by running the Schema.org snippet in the Structured Data Testing Tool is that the code doesn't verify. You're currently using an array for the sameAs property. But you can't use a @type SocialMediaPosting in there. Basically what it's expecting is an array of strings with the values of your sameAs properties. If you would change that it would likely verify.
Martijn.
-
The easiest way to test this is to go to https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool. Just taking a glance at it, it definitely looks like normal Schema code, I would use the tool to be sure though.
-
Super smart idea to be doing this. The best way to make sure this is pixel perfect is to use the Google Webmaster structured data tool: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2650907?hl=en
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
-
Right schema markup for wallpapers website?
I own a phone wallpapers website . I'm trying to find the right schema markup for my website. I'm planning to implant schema on home page and categories pages. What type and properties should I use?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bren-Moss0 -
Nothing I Know About SEO can Explain these Rankings?
Hi all, I have a client who wants to rank more prominently for "plastic surgeon jupiter fl", a key term in his niche that attracts 11-50 searches per month (but these are potentially big ticket clients). If you look at the first page of results for that term, I can't make any sense of them. I've checked page speed, Google listing optimization, on-page SEO, link metrics etc. and there seems to be no correlation with good on-page SEO, quality links (or volume of links). Any thoughts?? I literally cannot explain why the #1 site shows 2 inbound links via Moz OSE and almost no on-page SEO to speak of while sites ranking page 2 have better on-page SEO, more links, higher quality links (from what I can tell) etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
Question about structuring @id schema tags
We are using JSON-LD to apply schema. My colleague had question about applying @id tags in the schema parent lists: While implementing schema, we've included @id as a parameter to both the "list" child of "ListItem" of a "BreadcrumbList" - on the same schema, we've added an @id parameter to mainContentOfPage and both @id parameters are set to the pages URL. Having this @id in both places is giving schema checker results that have the child elements of "mainContentOfPage" appearing under the "list" item. Questions: is this good or bad? Where should @id be used? What should @id be set to? Thanks for the insight!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
How do you know if SEO factors are holding you back in rankings?
Hi there! I have been working on improving a site for almost a year now, and though we have made great strides in ranking for many relevant keywords our site is hovering at the bottom of page 2 and fluctuates from position 14 to 18 for almost a year. I am pretty prompt at addressing HTML improvements suggestions in WMT, but don't know where I should focus my limited time to get the most results. Competing websites have more backlinks than we do, but content is very thin and I don't think they update or add new content every week like we do. Please help! Am I missing something obvious?? Thanks in advance 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | candiceone0 -
Mircodata markup container in body of page
I have a question about the "container" that's created whenever microdata markup is applied. What is the purpose of this? I know Google says it helps them understand your content etc. but it creates a really bad eyesore wherever microdata markup is used. Basically a box with all the markup details right there in the body. Has anyone else experienced this? Is this why microdata markup has been so slow to be adopted by webmasters? I understand "hiding" the box in your CSS is not a good idea either. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
E commerce canonical links: include category structure?
I have a client on shopify. All categories have correct canonical links. however, the links from all menus, category pages, etc. follow this structure: /collections/COLLECTION_NAME/products/PRODUCT_NAME but the canonical link on the above product url is: /products/PRODUCT_NAME I have a feeling this is hurting our product detail page's seo. Our collection pages are ranking fine, but for some reason the detail pages aren't. It could be that they are deeper, but I am trying to make sure nothing big is causing it first before I get into the smaller factors. Any best practices on this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | no6thgear0 -
Does text, initially hidden within a tabbed structure, carry the same weight in Google?
Hi everyone, my site has suffered from a number of organic drops this year, following a redesign, panda, and penguin. An example of one of my key pages is shown below: http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/bridgestone-arena-hotels/326895 Earlier this year, I redesigned my site, so that, for example, 4 pages associated with each Bridgestone Arena (a page with nearby hotels, one for user reviews, one for upcoming events, one for general information) were combined into one "Bridgestone Arena Hotels" page. The reason I did this is because I felt that many of the pages were very thin. My new page has tabs for reviews, tickets etc., with the default tab listing nearby hotel information - the primary aim of my website. I'm worried that all the great unique user review information that I'm collecting is not being given the weighting it deserves, because it is content that is not immediately visible when the user lands on the page - only click the Reviews tab makes the content visible. The hidden content is definitely being picked up by Google e.g. searching for a portion of the review content in Google such as "We were here for the Aerosmith concert. The workers were so friendly and helpful - great experience!" serves up the Bridgestone Arena page in the results. But do you think Google still sees the page as being pretty thin in content, because much of the unique content is initially hidden? I am considering introducing a little featured reviews section to the visible content, that just includes a couple of the latest venue reviews, with a link to open the reviews tab. But if I have some review content here, and the same reviews in a hidden section of the same page, is Google likely to treat this as spammy? Thanks for your help and advice, Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mjk260 -
Internal Site Structure Question (URL Formation and Internal Link Design)
Hi, I have an e-commerce website that has an articles section: There is an articles.aspx file that can be reached from the top menu and it holds links to all of the articles as follows: xxx.com/articles/article1.aspx
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
xxx.com/articles/article2.aspx I want to add several new articles under a new sections, for example a complete set of articles under the title of "buying guide" and the question is what would be the best way? I was thinking of adding a "computers-buying-guides.aspx" accessible from the top menu / footer and from it linking to: xxx.com/computer-buying-ghudes/what-to-check-prior-to-buying-a-laptop.aspx
xxx.com/computer-buying-ghudes/weight-vs-performance.aspx
etc. Any thoughts / recommendations? Thanks0