Star Ratings in SERPS: Is this the correct mark up?
-
Having trouble getting star ratings to appear in the SERPs. Here's the 'marked up' HTML that a designer implemented into a website, I'm pretty sure it's missing a bunch of stuff:
5
Any help much appreciated!
-
Since schema.org is the new standard and adopted by Bing, Google and Yahoo, it is the better option. It also has more detail in its schema.
-
Figured it wasn't marked up. I'll get it coded in RDFa, thanks.
-
It looks like the page may be dynamically generated, otherwise you would need to update that part of the page each time a new rating is given. There is a lot missing for either RDFa or schema.org rich snippets.
You would need to add the mark-up in the code that created the page, and that is probably best left for the site designer.
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
-
Correct Internal Linking Strategy
Hello. So my website currently has 8 pages in total. (Homepage, 5 Service Pages, Contact, About). I currently have about 80 quality RD and my Homepage already ranks #8 for my main keyword, while all Service Pages (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) are stuck somewhere at #30-60 positions for their target keywords. My internal linking scheme looks like this https://i.imgur.com/2cA529v.png. The Homepage has a sidebar with links to all Service Pages, and each Service Page has the same sidebar that links to each Service Page, but doesn't link back to my Homepage. Contact and About pages can be accessed only via the links in the menu. I don't have any contextual links on my website, so all pages that are important for SEO are linked only via this same very sidebar. All these Service Pages are equally valuable to me, but they don't seem to grow much in Google. The Onpage Score of these pages is better than those of TOP10 competitors, and my content provides more value (I used the Skyscraper Technique). Taking all that into consideration, can you please tell me what might be wrong? Why Should I build more quality backlinks to these service pages instead of the homepage? Should I add contextual links to all my service pages from the homepage? Does my internal linking strategy look good to you? If not, what should I change? Can I hit top #10 with my internal pages for their target keywords if I mainly build links only to my homepage? All keywords that I'm after have low to medium competition. My website has 90 RD in total, and my website's DA is 27. Thank you. 2cA529v.png
Technical SEO | | NathalieBr3 -
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 -
Aggregate rating for products
hello Currently I'm working with a retail customer to optimize his search experience. There's some odd behaviour about aggregate ratings for products. Products without a price (price based on daily demand) are shown with proper delivering the 'rich snippet' search result. On the other hand, products with a price are shown normally without any mark up. Here's what I did for now checked mark ups code wise (used the markup validator) re-submitted xml sitemaps search query is (for test purposes): [product name] + [retailer brand name] the question is: why aren't just these specific aggregated ratings (with a price) shown and the other ones are shown properly? Furthermore, is it a question of relevancy (can't imagine that cause the search query is really specific to the needed result)? thank you!
Technical SEO | | f_ryf0 -
What is the best way to correct GWT telling me I have mobile usability errors in Image directories
In GWT, I wish to remove / resolve the following errors Mobile Usability > Viewport not configured Mobile Usability > Small font size Mobile Usability > Touch elements too close The domain www.sandpiperbeacon.com is responsive, and passes the mobile usability test. A new issue I noticed, is that GWT is reporting 200+ errors just for image index pages such as http://www.sandpiperbeacon.com/images/special-events/ for example. Website users cannot access these pages (without editing the URL manually) so I don't consider these usability issues. BUT, I hate to see 200+ errors, especially when Google itself says "Websites with mobile usability issues will be demoted in mobile search results." I could set the image directories to dissalow in Robots.txt, but I do not want the images to stop appearing in image search, so this seems like a flawed solution. I cannot be the only person experiencing this, but I have been unable to find any suggestions online.
Technical SEO | | RobertoGusto0 -
Https-pages still in the SERP's
Hi all, my problem is the following: our CMS (self-developed) produces https-versions of our "normal" web pages, which means duplicate content. Our it-department put the <noindex,nofollow>on the https pages, that was like 6 weeks ago.</noindex,nofollow> I check the number of indexed pages once a week and still see a lot of these https pages in the Google index. I know that I may hit different data center and that these numbers aren't 100% valid, but still... sometimes the number of indexed https even moves up. Any ideas/suggestions? Wait for a longer time? Or take the time and go to Webmaster Tools to kick them out of the index? Another question: for a nice query, one https page ranks No. 1. If I kick the page out of the index, do you think that the http page replaces the No. 1 position? Or will the ranking be lost? (sends some nice traffic :-))... thanx in advance 😉
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0 -
Remove unwanted map in SERP
My company is based in Brighton. We run courses in London. If you search 'london business writing' in Google UK, you get this: http://i39.tinypic.com/35me3qs.jpg Lolwut. Google is placing a link for a map to our Brighton offices beneath the second result. For a London-related keyword that links to a page for our London courses that contains an address for our London venue. We are registered on Google maps as being based in Brighton; we also have a map of our Brighton office on our contact page. But obviously, this is not relevant to this search. How do I get rid of this map for this keyword?
Technical SEO | | JacobFunnell0 -
Is this tabbed implementation of SEO copy correct (i.e. good for getting indexed and in an ok spot in the html as viewed by search bots?
We are trying to switch to a tabbed version of our team/product pages at SeatGeek.com, but where all tabs (only 2 right now) are viewed as one document by the search engines. I am pretty sure we have this working for the most part, but would love some quick feedback from you all as I have never worked with this approach before and these pages are some of our most important. Resources: http://www.ericpender.com/blog/tabs-and-seo http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=03fdefb488a16343&hl=en http://searchengineland.com/is-hiding-content-with-display-none-legitimate-seo-13643 Sample in use: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors **Old Version: ** http://screencast.com/t/BWn0OgZsXt http://seatgeek.com/boston-celtics-tickets/ New Version with tabs: http://screencast.com/t/VW6QzDaGt http://screencast.com/t/RPvYv8sT2 http://seatgeek.com/miami-heat-tickets/ Notes: Content not displayed stacked on browser when Javascript turned off, but it is in the source code. Content shows up in Google cache of new page in the text version. In our implementation the JS is currently forcing the event to end before the default behavior of adding #about in this case to the url string - this can be changed, should it be? Related to this, the developer made it so that typing http://seatgeek.com/miami-heat-tickets/#about directly into the browser does not go to the tab with copy, which I imagine could be considered spammy from a human review perspective (this wasn't intentional). This portion of the code is below the truncated view of the fetch as Googlebot, so we didn't have that resource. Are there any issues with hidden text / is this too far down in the html? Any/all feedback appreciated. I know our copy is old, we are in the process of updating it for this season.
Technical SEO | | chadburgess0 -
Google Indexed URLs for Terms Have Changed Causing Huge SERP Drop
We haven't made any significant changes to our website, however the pages that google has indexed for our critical keywords have changed to pages that have caused our SERP to drop dramatically for those pages. In some cases, the changes make no sense at all. For example, one of our terms that used to be indexed to our homepage is now indexed to a dead category page that has nothing on it. One of our biggest terms, where we were 9th, changed and is now indexed to our FAQ. As a result, we now rank 44th. This is having a MAJOR impact on our business so any help on why this sudden change happened and what we can do to combat it is greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | EvergladesDirect0