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
-
Structured data and Google+ Local business page are conflicting
Hi, A few (almost 8 now) months ago we have added structured data to our website. which according to the testing tool should work. (Our url: https://www.rezdy.com) However when searching for our company name, our old local business page from Google+ shows up. I have reached out to google to tell them that we aren't a local business anymore and want the data from the page to be removed. But this all takes painfully long. I want my search result to be shown like the large businesses (examples: Adroll, Hubspot), including logo, twitter feed etc. etc. Will this all work, if so, is there a way to speed up the process, any suggestions?
Technical SEO | | Niek_Dekker1 -
The W3C Markup Validation Service - Good, Bad or Impartial?
Hi guys, it seems that now days it is almost impossible to achieve 0 (Zero) Errors when testing a site via (The W3C Markup Validation Service - https://validator.w3.org). With analytic codes, pixels and all kind of tracking and social media scripts gunning it seems to be an unachievable task. My questions to you fellow SEO'rs out there are 2: 1. How important and to what degree of effort do you go when you technically review a site and make the decision as to what needs to be fixed and what you shouldn't bother with. 2. How do you argue your corner when explaining to your clients that its impossible to active 100% validation. *As a note i will say that i mostly refer to Wordpress driven sites. would love ot hear your take. Daniel.
Technical SEO | | artdivision0 -
URL Structure
I'm going through the process of redesigning our website, and the URL structure was brought up. We currently have our URLs structured as domain.com/keyword. It seems that some people think setting your URLs up to look like: domain.com/directory/keyword makes more sense from a user's perspective, and from a search engine's perspective. With our directories labeled as services, solutions, clients - I see no value in adding directories as it dilutes the keyword and brings the keyword further away from the domain. Are there situations where adding a directory before the page in the URL makes sense? If anyone has data showing the difference between the two that'd be great! Thanks, Brian
Technical SEO | | PrasoonGoel0 -
Starting a Blog and URL Structure Advice
Hello SEOmoz Community, We are going to start a blog on our website and have a slight dilemma. Our site is a .Net site and the blog platform we've chosen (BlogEngine) only allows us to use the following url structure: www.domain.com/blog/post/post-name. We've looked at other .Net blog software and this one meets all of our needs except for the ideal URL Structure. We would like to remove the /post/ directory; however have not technically found a way to do it. We wanted to get some opinions on whether or not we should just start with this URL structure and not worry about the extra directory, or work to find another solution that eliminates this extra directory. Ideally we want to keep the posts as close to the root as possible for link juice distribution, and the extra directory could get in the way. Also, if anyone has any advice on a more flexible .Net blog platform, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. We thank you so much in advance for your time and help.
Technical SEO | | All-Star-Vacation-Homes0 -
How to structure rel=canonical for a e commerce site
Hello, So I have searched the Q & A , Google, the zen cart forum and at this point I am looking for some one to give a concrete answer on what I should do. There is a lot of different opinions on " rel=canonical" and how to apply it , since there are many other variable in place. I have a zen cart site. I am using the latest 1.3.9 version. The default setting ( seem to me) uses the rel=canonical to point back to the specific link product or category respectively. Most of the time I have two scenarios. 1. Main category ---> Sub category----> Product 2. Main Category----> Product I'll give an example http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards ---main category http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards/acrylic-awards sub category http://www.perfectindesign.com/awards/acrylic-awards/slanted-award product (this example has three sub categories with maybe 12 products in one 4 in the second and 5 in the third) From looking at the source code for each url it the rel=canonical just points back to its own url. I want to avoid competing against my self, for the example above keyword "acrylic awards" so should the use of the re=canonical be changes site wide to have products point back to sub categories when they exist and have products point back to main categories when no sub categories exist? I am very new to seo, specifically eCommerce seo. If you have experience and have done this to a site you manage for a client or your own please advise how to proceed. Also if I'm missing some thing that will give me a better understanding of the bigger seo picture that would be great. Thanks, Yevgeny
Technical SEO | | Yevgeny0 -
URL Structure Question
Hey folks, I have a weird problem and currently no idea how to fix it. We have a lot of pages showing up as duplicates although they are the same page, the only difference is the url structure. They seem to show up like: http://www.example.com/page/ and http://www.example.com/page What would I need to do to force the URLs into one format or the other to avoid having that one page counting as two? The same issue pops up with upper and lower case: http://www.example.com/Page and http://www.example.com/page Is there any solution to this or would I need to forward them with 301s or similar? Thanks, Mike
Technical SEO | | Malarowski0 -
Duplicate Content via a product feed & data
We have uniquely created all of our product content on our website (Titles, product descriptions, images etc). However, we are also a manufacturer of these products and supply to a number of trade customers. These customers often wish to setup their own websites to re-sell these products. In the past we have quite happily given this content in order to assist our customers sell on their sites. Generally we give them a 'data dump' of our web data and images, but reading about duplicate content this will lead to the search engines seeing lots of identical content on these customer sites. Whilst we wish to support our customers we do not want to harm our (and their) site by issuing lots of duplicate content around the web. Is there a way we can help them with the data without penalizing ourselves? The other issue is that we also take this data feed and use it to sell on both Amazon & Googlebase. Will using this identical data also rank as duplicate content as a quick search does show both our website and amazon product page? When creating Amazon listing do these need to vary from the standard website descriptions? Thanks
Technical SEO | | bwfc770 -
We changed the URL structure 10 weeks ago and Google hasn't indexed it yet...
We recently modified the whole URL structure on our website, which resulted in huge amount of 404 pages changing them to nice human readable urls. We did this in the middle of March - about 10 weeks ago... We used to have around 5000 404 pages in the beginning, but this number is decreasing slowly. (We have around 3000 now). On some parts of the website we have also set up a 301 redirect from the old URLs to the new ones, to avoid showing a 404 page thus making the “indexing transmission”, but it doesn’t seem to have made any difference. We've lost a significant amount of traffic, because of the URL changes, as Google removed the old URLs, but hasn’t indexed our new URLs yet. Is there anything else we can do to get our website indexed with the new URL structure quicker? It might also be useful to know that we are a page rank 4 and have over 30,000 unique users a month so I am sure Google often comes to the site quite often and pages we have made since then that only have the new url structure are indexed within hours sometimes they appear in search the next day!
Technical SEO | | jack860