Vimeo Rich Snippet correct?
-
Goodday MOZ-friends
We added our video to Vimeo PRO and added it to our website. (http://www.sitetogo.nl/) We also added a XML (http://www.sitetogo.nl/sitemap-video.xml)
I'm not sure if we done this correctly. Can anybody tell me this?
Thanks & Greetings, Vincent / www.sitetogo.nl
-
thanks! i fixed it yesterday. So now i start the waiting proces
greetings!
-
It'll take several weeks and up to a couple of months for Google to crawl your video sitemap. Once you've fixed it, as recommended, you'll need to sit tight and wait for the crawl.
-
I checked all with the MOZtoolbar and with webmaster tools. Both tell me there is no rich snippet on the website. (www.sitetogo.nl) Any ideas? Lot's of thanks....
best regards, Vincent
-
thanks! all clear. :-)) have a great day.
-
Well - your sitemap is fine, except your content_loc and player_loc tags are wrong.
You should replace the file which you reference in the content_loc tag with the current file being referenced in the player_loc tag (which is just an example.com link, which means I assume you used a tool to construct the sitemap). You should then cut the content_loc tag as you don't need it for this specific sitemap.
-
Wow. that's a fast answer. Thanks. Feeling a noob right now....
Can you explain what you mean?the embed code in de website is correct?
the XML needs only to have a player_loc? And i have to remove the content_loc?
-
Your player_loc tag as an example.com link in it and the file you're pointing to in your content_loc tag is a .swf file, which means that should be a player_loc tag instead.
Other than that, it looks fine.
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 / Rich snippets
I have made FAQ to my website Lån utan UC. I have double checked several time and the code is correct. THe problem is that the FAQ it does not show up i Google search. I have put the code at several subpages, like for example: Mikrolån and at all other sites it shows in SERP but not for the first mentioned site above. That site is the startpage/homepage is that relevant to the issue? Please help and I would be really happy. I have tried to fix this in months...
Technical SEO | | LanutanUC0 -
Snippet not work for my article in google
I add the script for star snippet in my website but not work in my posts you can see it in this URL https://youtech.ooo/showbox-apk-download/ when I searched in google my custom keyword "Showbox" my competitor show with star snippet in SERP but my site doesn't show snippet stars. Thank You!
Technical SEO | | JackJasonn1 -
URL Inspector, Rich Results Tool, GSC unable to detect Logo inside Embedded schema
I work on a news site and we updated our Schema set up last week. Since then, valid Logo items are dropping like flies in Search Console. Both URL inspector & Rich Results test cannot seem to be able to detect Logo on articles. Is this a bug or can Googlebot really not see schema nested within other schema?Previously, we had both Organization and Article schema, separately, on all article pages (with Organization repeated inside publisher attribute). We removed the separate Organization, and now just have Article with Organization inside the publisher attribute. Code is valid in Structured Data testing tool but URL inspection etc. cannot detect it. Example: https://bit.ly/2TY9Bct Here is this page in URL inspector:
Technical SEO | | ValnetInc
By comparison, we also have Organization schema (un-nested) on our homepage. Interestingly enough, the tools can detect that no problem. That's leading me to believe that either nested schema is unreadable by Googlebot OR that this is not an accurate representation of Googlebot and it's only unreadable by the testing tools. Here is the homepage in URL inspector: 
In pseudo-code, our OLD schema looked like this: The NEW schema set up has the same Article schema set up, but the separate script for Organization has been removed. We made the change to embed our schema for a couple reasons: first, because Google's best practices say that if multiple schemas are used, Google will choose the best one so it's better to just have one script; second, Google's codelabs tutorial for schema uses a nested structure to indicate hierarchy of relevancy to the page. My question is, does nesting schemas like this make it impossible for Googlebot to detect a schema type that's 2 or more levels deep? Or is this just a bug with the testing tools?
0 -
Self referencing canonicals AND duplicate URLs. Have I set them up correctly?
Hi team, We've recently redesigned our website. Originally we had separate product listings for every product. Even if there was one design in two colours, each colour had its own listing. With the redesign we merged all of these identical products to help with duplicate content. Customers can now browse the different stone colours available in that design from a single product listing (bottom left of screen under 'select a stone' on a product page) When the customer changes the stone colour, the product images change to the new colour and its product code is appended to the end of the existing URL. eg: http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/ (original listing) http://www.mountainjade.co.nz/necklaces/assorted-jades-open-koru-necklace-jc1725/?sku=JC1725BL (black selected) We have the following self referencing canonicals on all product pages [current-page:url:absolute], yet MOZ is telling me I have alot of duplicate content on pages with the above example. Have I implemented the canonicals correctly? Is this why Moz is flagging the listings as duplicate?
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Exclude price in rich snippet markup
Our site has their prices hidden for non logged in users. Its a woocommerce built site and the rich snippet markups are added by woocommerce. I would like to remove the markup for the price becouse : 1, we would like our customers to register for prices. 2 i dont want to get penalties for not showing the same thing to visitors as to "google" .. Any help or thoughts on this one? Thanks / Jonas
Technical SEO | | knubbz0 -
Correct Implementation Of Canonical Tags
Hopefully this is an easy one to answer. When canonical tags are added to web pages should there be a canonical tag on a page that canonicalizes(?) (new word!?) back to itself. i.e. four page all point back to page Z. On page Z there is a canonical tag that points to page Z? My feeling without any technical know how is that this is just creating an infinite loop i.e. go to this page for original content, (repeat) Or this could be completely correct! Don't want to go back to the developer and point out the error if I'm wrong!
Technical SEO | | ZaddleMarketing0 -
Will I still get Duplicate Meta Data Errors with the correct use of the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags?
Hi Guys, One of our sites has an extensive number category page lsitings, so we implemented the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags for these pages (as suggested by Google below), However, we still see duplicate meta data errors in SEOMoz crawl reports and also in Google webmaster tools. Does the SEOMoz crawl tool test for the correct use of rel="next" and "prev" tags and not list meta data errors, if the tags are correctly implemented? Or, is it necessary to still use unique meta titles and meta descriptions on every page, even though we are using the rel="next" and "prev" tags, as recommended by Google? Thanks, George Implementing rel=”next” and rel=”prev” If you prefer option 3 (above) for your site, let’s get started! Let’s say you have content paginated into the URLs: http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1
Technical SEO | | gkgrant
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3
http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4 On the first page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=1, you’d include in the section: On the second page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2: On the third page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=3: And on the last page, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=4: A few points to mention: The first page only contains rel=”next” and no rel=”prev” markup. Pages two to the second-to-last page should be doubly-linked with both rel=”next” and rel=”prev” markup. The last page only contains markup for rel=”prev”, not rel=”next”. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” values can be either relative or absolute URLs (as allowed by the tag). And, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL. rel=”next” and rel=”prev” only need to be declared within the section, not within the document . We allow rel=”previous” as a syntactic variant of rel=”prev” links. rel="next" and rel="previous" on the one hand and rel="canonical" on the other constitute independent concepts. Both declarations can be included in the same page. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain: rel=”prev” and rel=”next” act as hints to Google, not absolute directives. When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content.0 -
Correct 301 of domain inclusive "/"
Do I have to redirect "/" in the domain by default? My root domain is e.g. petra.at
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
--> I redirect via 301 to www.petra.at Do I have to do that with petra.at/ and www.petra.at/, too?0
