Schema.org Microdata or Microformats - Which Should We Use
-
Hi All,
I'm wondering what would be the better alternative - schema.org microdata or microformats. I am aware that search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing recognize Schema.org as the standard. Question is, will it have any negative affect? Our web developer here says that schema.org microdata may result in negative html. I don't think that it will affect our SEO, but I guess that's also something to shed some light on.
So, what's the consensus here - should we implement schema.org or go with microformats - or, does it really make any difference?
-
i think the case can be made for any of the three main formats. all have their pros & cons, but Google recommends schema.org microdata
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en
structured data offers search engines more information about the site. more information they can use to evaluate the relevancy of your site to a query as well as the depth of content for a richer snippet. as far as it negatively affecting SEO, i would say take the same precautions as you would with any other tactic. implement it as cleanly & honestly as possible. if it's done with (perceived) manipulation for the sole purpose of better rankings it can negatively affect the a website's SEO. but that's just a good rule of thumb regardless of the tactic.
-
Hi Pedram,
You are correct when you say Schema.org is the standard by the major search engines.
Here's a great discussion on the subject here: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/166612/schema-org-vs-microformats
Hope this helps
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
-
Does using non-https links (not pages) impact or penalise the website rankings?
Hi community, We have couple of pages where we we have given non-https (http) hyperlinks by mistake. They will redirect to http links anyway. Does using these http links on page hurt any rankings? Thansk
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
If my article is reposted on another blog, using re=canonical, does that count as a link back?
Hey all! My company blog is interested in letting another blog repost our article. We would ask them to use "re-canonical" in the mark-up to avoid Google digging through "duplicate" info out there. I was wondering, if the other site does use the "re=canonical", will that appear as a backlink or no? I understand that metrics will flow back to my original URL and not the canonical one, but I am wondering if the repost will additionally show as a backlink. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | cmguidry0 -
Does Google use dateModified or date Published in its SERPs?
I was curious as to the prioritization of dateCreated / datePublished and dateModified in our microdata and how it affects google search results. I have read some entries online that say Google prioritizes dateModified in SERPs, but others that claim they prioritize datePublished or dateCreated. Do you know (or could you point me to some resources) as to whether Google uses dateModified or date Published in its SERPs? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Parse.ly0 -
Proactively Use GWT Removal Tool?
I have a bunch of links on my site from sexualproblems.net (not a porn site, it's a legit doctor's site who I've talked to on the phone in America). The problem is his site got hacked and has tons of links on his homepage to other pages, and mine is one of them. I have asked him multiple times to take the link down, but his webmaster is his teenage son, who doesn't basically just doesn't feel like it. My question is, since I don't think they will take the link down, should I proactively remove it or just wait till I get a message from google? I'd rather not tell google I have spam links on my site, even if I am trying to get them removed. However, I have no idea if that's a legitimate fear or not. I could see the link being removed and everything continuing fine or I could see reporting the removal request as signaling a giant red flag for my site to be audited. Any advice? Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Using a stop word when optimizing pages
I have a page (for a spa) I am trying to fully optimize and, using AdWords have run every conceivable configuration (using Exact Match) to ascertain the optimal phrase to use. Unfortunately, the term which has come up as the 'best' phrase is "spas in XXX" [xxx represents a location]. When reviewing the data, phrases such as "spas XXX" or "spa XXX" doesn't give me an appropriate search volume to warrant optimizing. So, with that said, do I optimize the page without the word "in", and 'hope' we get the search volume for searches using the word "in", or optimize using the stop word? Any thoughts? Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | MarketingAgencyFlorida0 -
Should I use the Disavow Tool at this point?
After Penguin, our site: www.stadriemblems.com jumped up to #1 for the keyword "embroidered patches." Now, months later, it's at the top pf page two. I'm pretty sure this is because we do have a few shady links (I didn't do it!) that perhaps Penguin didn't catch the first time around, but now Google is either discounting them or counting them against us. My question is, since I'm pretty sure those links are the reason we are gradually declining, should I submit them to Google as disavowed, even though technically, we're not penalized . . . yet? I have done everything possible to get them removed, and it's not happening.
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept0 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
Using Brand Name in Page titles
Is it a good practice to append our brand name at the end of every page title? We have a very strong brand name but it is also long. Right now what we are doing is saying: Product Name | Long brand name here Product Category | Long brand name here Is this the right way to do it or should we just be going with ONLY the product and category names in our page titles? Right now we often exceed the 70 character recommendation limit.
Algorithm Updates | | mlentner1