Schema Markup Warning "Missing field "url" (optional)"
-
Hello Moz Team, I hope everyone is doing well & good,
I need bit help regarding Schema Markup, I am facing issue in my schema markup specifically with my blog posts,
In my majority of the posts I find error "Missing field "url" (optional)"
As this schema is generated by Yoast plugin, I haven't applied any custom steps.Recently I published a post
https://dailycontributors.com/kisscartoon-alternatives-and-complete-review/
and I tested it at two platforms of schema test
1, Validator.Schema.org
2. Search.google.com/test/rich-resultsSo the validator generate results as follows and shows no error
It shows no error
But where as
in search central results it gives me a warning "Missing field "url" (optional)".
So is this really be going to issue for my ranking ? Please help thanks!
-
@JoeySolicitor I thinks , My website sam with your issue
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
-
Product markup for a website that doesn't show prices
Hi, I am working on a site that presents several products with their descriptions and features, but does not include e-commerce functionality, so it does not show prices. I would be interested in understanding how to properly use the Product markup since the Offer field cannot be filled in. What are your experiences or advice on how best to handle this? Do you have advice on different vocabularies to Product? Thank you very much for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | filippodanesi0 -
Product markup for a website that doesn't show prices
Hi, I am working on a site that presents several products with their descriptions and features, but does not include e-commerce functionality, so it does not show prices. I would be interested in understanding how to properly use the Product markup since the Offer field cannot be filled in. What are your experiences or advice on how best to handle this? Do you have advice on different vocabularies to Product? Thank you very much for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | filippodanesi0 -
Sudden Indexation of "Index of /wp-content/uploads/"
Hi all, I have suddenly noticed a massive jump in indexed pages. After performing a "site:" search, it was revealed that the sudden jump was due to the indexation of many pages beginning with the serp title "Index of /wp-content/uploads/" for many uploaded pieces of content & plugins. This has appeared approximately one month after switching to https. I have also noticed a decline in Bing rankings. Does anyone know what is causing/how to fix this? To be clear, these pages are **not **normal /wp-content/uploads/ but rather "index of" pages, being included in Google. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | Tom3_150 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
Many "spin-off" sites - 301 or 401/410?
Hi there, I've just started a new job with a rental car company with locations all over New Zealand and Australia. I've discovered that we have several websites along the lines of "rentalcarsnewzealand", "bigsaverentals" etc that are all essentially clones of our primary site. I'm assuming that these were set up as some sort of "interesting" SEO attempt. I want to get rid of them, as they create customer experience issues and they're not getting a hell of a lot of traffic (or driving bookings) anyway. I was going to just 301 them all to our homepage - is this the right approach? Several of the sites are indexed by Google and they've been linked up to a number of sites - the 301 move wouldn't be to try to derive any linkjuice or anything of that nature, but simply to get people to our main site if they do find themselves clicking a link to one of those sites. Thanks very much for your advice! Nicole
Technical SEO | | AceRentalCars0 -
Looking for feedback about "look-ahead" navigation
Our company has been creating websites where the navigation is developed in such a way as to allow the visitor to get a preview of the image and/or content on that is on the page. Here are two websites that use this technology:
Technical SEO | | TopFloor
http://www.uniquepadprinting.com/
http://www.empathia.com/ (On this site, the previews are only available if you click on "Whole", "Productive" or "Safe" at the top of the page. I'm looking for feedback such as: What do you call this type of navigation (We call it look-ahead, but I can't find much info that term on the web) Have you experienced any issues with this type of navigation? Do you have any recommendations on it? Some of the things we've seen are: It adds the same content to every page of the website It creates a lot of internal links It can create a lot of code on pages It can slow page-load times0 -
Canonical URL
I previously set the canonical Url in google web masters to the non www version, when I check my on page opt, it tells me that I have a critical issue with this. Should I change it in google web masters back to the www version? if so is there the possibility of negative results? Or is there a better way to deal with this? Note, I have inbound links pointing to both types.
Technical SEO | | bronxpad0 -
"nofollow pages" or "duplicate content"?
We have a huge site with lots of geographical-pages in this structure: domain.com/country/resort/hotel domain.com/country/resort/hotel/facts domain.com/country/resort/hotel/images domain.com/country/resort/hotel/excursions domain.com/country/resort/hotel/maps domain.com/country/resort/hotel/car-rental Problem is that the text on ie. /excursions is often exactly the same on .../alcudia/hotel-sea-club/excursion and .../alcudia/hotel-beach-club/excursion The two hotels offer the same excursions, and the intro text on the pages are the exact same throughout the entire site. This is also a problem on the /images and /car-rental pages. I think in most cases the only difference on these pages is the Title, description and H1. These pages do not attract a lot of visits through search-engines. But to avoid them being flagged as duplicate content (we have more than 4000 of these pages - /excursions, /maps, /car-rental, /images), do i add a nofollow-tag to these, do i block them in robots.txt or should i just leave them and live with them being flagged as duplicate content? Im waiting for our web-team to add a function to insert a geographical-name in the text, so i could add ie #HOTELNAME# in the text and thereby avoiding the duplicate text. Right now we have intros like: When you visit the hotel ... instead of: When you visit Alcudia Sea Club But untill the web-team has fixed these GEO-tags, what should i do? What would you do and why?
Technical SEO | | alsvik0