Why isn't our structured markup showing in search results
-
Hi All,
We installed Schema.org structured markup on our pages nearly 1.5 months ago at this point and we have yet to see the markup show in the search results. It also checks out in Webmaster tools and Google's structured markup language testing tool. So, I'm just confused why it's not even showing up site a "site" search in Google either.
Here's an example of two such pages on our site:
http://www.learningtree.com/htfu/usdc01/washington/java-perl-and-python-programming-training
and
http://www.learningtree.com/htfu/usat40/alpharetta/it-and-management-training
Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thank you
-
Hi
As Dennis confirmed, the 2nd link is showing the rich snippets. Try not to rely on the site: operator, and instead (first choice), query Google specifically where your result should appear first naturally, in your target country. For example, https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=IT+and+Management+Training+Alpharetta%2C+GA+&gl=us yields the desired result:http://screencast.com/t/szChNsHMjS42
Alternatively, you can always try the info: operator which is usually more reliable. Your first result is a bit more confusing to explain, http://screencast.com/t/nY3u6eCdeIfV. You have 2 results appearing for the exact page title query, and that might be the reason why you aren't seeing it (at least in this example): https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&q=Java%2C+Perl+and+Python+Programming+Training+&gl=us
Just as David-Kley said above, you've implemented the microdata correctly and it's really up to Google as to whether the query deserves rich snippets or not. On the up side, you are getting quite a few rich snippets, so just look around https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&q=Perl++Programming+Training&gl=us
Thanks,
Dave
-
Make sure you are not signed into your Google account when trying to see if pages are displaying authorship. If you are signed in, it will not show.
As to the markup, if it is showing up in Google's snippet testing tool, it is there. It is up to Google when and where they display the snippets, if they feel it benefits the user.
-
Hi Pedram
The 2nd link is already showing the markup
The rest should come along eventually. I usually notice quicker changes for higher trafficked pages (higher activity and better crawled) on the sites I run. They also, sometimes appear and disappear altogether but they did tweak it recently to show more often based on the sites that I am tracking.
-
This may help you:
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
-
New Featured Links in Organic Search Results?
Hi guys, I just performed a search and came across something that looks like "featured links" under a regular organic search result (see screenshot). This is the first time I'm seeing this. It looks like a combination of callout and sitelink ad extensions for Google ads. Basically, linked callouts. I went to the landing page to check out the source code and it seems like they are calling it "featured link" in their code. I tried to find more info online but wasn't able to find anything. (I might not be using the correct search terms.) Does anyone know how to take advantage of this? Thanks a lot for your feedback. dJ9dmTr
Algorithm Updates | | HinterP0 -
Log File Analyzer Only Showing Spoofed Bots and No Verified Bots
Question for you guys: After analyzing some crawl data in Search Console in the sitemap section, I noticed that Google consistently isn't indexing about 3/4 of the client sites I work on that all use the same content management system. I began to wonder if maybe Google (and others) have a hard time crawling certain parts of the sites consistently, as finding a pattern here could lead me to investigate whether there's a CMS problem. To research this, I started using a log file analyzer (Screaming Frog's version) for some of those clients. After loading the files, I noticed that none of the crawl activity logged by the servers is considered verified. I input one month's worth of log files, but when I switch the program to show only verified bots, all data disappears. Is it possible for a site not to have any search engines crawling it for a whole month? Given my experience, that seems unlikely, particularly since we've been submitting crawl requests. I know that doesn't guarantee a crawl, but it seems odd that it's never happening for any search engines across the board. Context that might be helpful: I did check technical settings, and the sites are crawlable. The sites do appear in search but seem to be losing organic search traffic. Thanks for any help you can provide!
Algorithm Updates | | geodigitalmarketing0 -
404s in Google Search Console and javascript
The end of April, we made the switch from http to https and I was prepared for a surge in crawl errors while Google sorted out our site. However, I wasn't prepared for the surge in impossibly incorrect URLs and partial URLs that I've seen since then. I have learned that as Googlebot grows up, he'she's now attempting to read more javascript and will occasionally try to parse out and "read" a URL in a string of javascript code where no URL is actually present. So, I've "marked as fixed" hundreds of bits like /TRo39,
Algorithm Updates | | LizMicik
category/cig
etc., etc.... But they are also returning hundreds of otherwise correct URLs with a .html extension when our CMS system generates URLs with a .uts extension like this: https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.html
when it should be:
https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.uts Worst of all, when I look at them in GSC and check the "linked from" tab it shows they are linked from themselves, so I can't backtrack and find a common source of the error. Is anyone else experiencing this? Got any suggestions on how to stop it from happening in the future? Last month it was 50 URLs, this month 150, so I can't keep creating redirects and hoping it goes away. Thanks for any and all suggestions!
Liz Micik0 -
Google search analytics position - how is it worked out
In our Google search analytic s graphs total clicks and impressions appear as a sold line on the graph(ie showing a result for each day) Position only shows as an occasional dot or line - not a continuous result for each day) sometimes there are days with no result for position. How do google get these results
Algorithm Updates | | CostumeD0 -
What's the current situation for exact match ecommerce domains
I'm looking for some current opinions on exact-match domains when it comes to ecommerce sites. I currently own an "OK" brandable domain in a specific ecommerce niche. The opportunity has now come along to own the exact match domain for this category. For example catfood.com Is it more advisable to focus on brandables these days? I know Google doesn't give weight to exact match anymore but is there still a correlation not causation factor to consider? IE: the links back would be more targeted possibly?
Algorithm Updates | | NoClueSEO0 -
Wrong result showing on seomoz
I have created 1 campaign for my site, www.giftbig.com The campaign ID is - 206474 I added 7 keywords on my campaign out of 7 there is a one keyword "gift vouchers" as per pro.seomoz the google rank is 4. buy when i search on google its not coming on 4th rank. can anybody tell me why its showing wrong result on my campaign.
Algorithm Updates | | Joydeep_das0 -
Vanity URL's and http codes
We have a vanity URL that as recommended is using 301 http code, however it has been discovered the destination URL needs to be updated which creates a problem since most browsers and search engines cache 301 redirects. Is there a good way to figure out when a vanity should be a 301 vs 302/307? If all vanity URL's should use 301, what is the proper way of updating the destination URL? Is it a good rule of thumb that if the vanity URL is only going to be temporary and down the road could have a new destination URL to use 302, and all others 301? Cheers,
Algorithm Updates | | Shawn_Huber0 -
Monthly Searches in Rankings Tab
Hi everyone, I'm pretty new to SEOMoz, so my apologies if this is a very obvious question. I'm trying to find out how to do a report that shows both the ranking of my keywords as well as the monthly searches in Google or the other search engines. Is there an option for this? Thanks in advance!
Algorithm Updates | | seoppc20120