Sitelink Search Box mark-up when multiple query strings are used
-
Hi all,
I'm looking to implement sitelink search box mark-up in Google Tag Manager in JSON-LD format. This would be popped into the Custom HTML tag and would look a little something like:
The above option is great if you have one query string for your search term, but what if you had a URL that triggered two query strings - for example:
https://www.example.com/search?q=searchterm&category=all
Would you need to amend the code something like the below:
Any help would be much appreciated!
Cheers,
Sean
-
Hi Sean,
While multiple variables are technically allowed—Schema.org only requires that your URI templates follow RFC6570, and that does allow multiple variables—there's no indication that Google will recognise it.
In fact, if you look at schema.org/SearchAction, you'll see there's no such property as "query-input". The property they've agreed on is the more flexible "query". Google isn't using that, and it seems that, for now, they'll only expand and use one variable in your target URL.
They might change it in the future. For now, as a bit of a rubbish workaround, you could hardcode the value of category to be "all", like this:
"target": "https://www.example.com/search?q={search_term_string}&category=all"
This way, sitelink search results will always at least come through to your site and by default search through all categories. But by then, at least users are on your site, and you could then use faceted navigation to help them drill down into particular categories.
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
-
Are there any downsides to using a canonical tag temporarily?
I'm working on redesigning our website. One of the content types has a main archive page (/success-stories) containing all of the success stories (written by graduates of our program). Because we plan to have success stories for other people (non-graduates), I'm using category hierarchies (/success-stories/graduates and success-stories/nonprofits, for example). It will go one level deeper to organize graduates by graduation year (/success-stories/graduates/%year%). I think this will work out well. However, we won't have non-graduate success stories for a little while, probably at least a few weeks, which means that /success-stories and /.../graduates indices will contain the same content for a while. So my question is this: Will it hurt to use a canonical tag that points to /success-stories/graduates as the authority until the main archive page contains more than just graduates? Or would it be better to use a 302 redirect from /success-stories to /.../graduates until more diverse content is added?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bcaples0 -
Keyword not provided now in search console
Hello, Is the not provided now available in google search console ? It seems that it is or is it a totally different thing in the search console ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Change of Address in Google Search Console
I have merged domains before and it went rather smoothly following the Moz Guide - https://moz.com/blog/save-your-website-with-redirects . I've got a new challenge ahead of me though in that a client is buying the blog subdirectory associated with another domain. So it's the blog only, not the complete domain therefore a change of address for a site section doesn't exist. I believe the course of action will be the same except we'll just skip the change of address step since the original owner wants to maintain the TLD. Part of the contract is that we'll get the content which will be ported over to our domain and he'll maintain the 301's as requested and into perpetuity. Our domain is not brand new and has some credible links. Anyone encounter a transition of a partial domain before? Thanks for your help/suggestions.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoaustin0 -
Google Search Analytics How to Get Search Keywords for a Page?
How do I get the keywords coming into a page on the new Google Webmaster Tools Search Analytics? Used to be there in the old version. You would just view your most popular urls and when you expanded the urls you would see the terms driving the traffic. How do I see the most popular keyword queries for a given page in the new tool? Alternatively can I still use the old tool somehow?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | K-WINTER0 -
Should I disallow all URL query strings/parameters in Robots.txt?
Webmaster Tools correctly identifies the query strings/parameters used in my URLs, but still reports duplicate title tags and meta descriptions for the original URL and the versions with parameters. For example, Webmaster Tools would report duplicates for the following URLs, despite it correctly identifying the "cat_id" and "kw" parameters: /Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jmorehouse
/Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM?cat_id=87
/Mulligan-Practitioner-CD-ROM?kw=CROM Additionally, theses pages have self-referential canonical tags, so I would think I'd be covered, but I recently read that another Mozzer saw a great improvement after disallowing all query/parameter URLs, despite Webmaster Tools not reporting any errors. As I see it, I have two options: Manually tell Google that these parameters have no effect on page content via the URL Parameters section in Webmaster Tools (in case Google is unable to automatically detect this, and I am being penalized as a result). Add "Disallow: *?" to hide all query/parameter URLs from Google. My concern here is that most backlinks include the parameters, and in some cases these parameter URLs outrank the original. Any thoughts?0 -
Search box within search results question
I work for a Theater news website. We have two sister sites, theatermania.com in the US and whatsonstage.com in London. Both sites have largely the same codebase and page layouts. We've implemented markup that allows google to show a search box for our site in its results page. For some reason, the search box is showing for one site but not the other: http://screencast.com/t/CSA62NT8 We're scratching our heads. Does anyone have any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
Fixing A Page Google Omits In Search
Hi, I have two pages ranking for the same keyword phrase. Unfortunately, the wrong page is ranking higher, and the other page, only ranks when you include the omitted results. When you have a page that only shows when its omitted, is that because the content is too similar in google's eyes? Could there be any other possible reason? The content really shouldn't be flagged as duplicate, but if this is the only reason, I can change it around some more. I'm just trying to figure out the root cause before I start messing with anything. Here are the two links, if that's necessary. http://www.kempruge.com/personal-injury/ http://www.kempruge.com/location/tampa/tampa-personal-injury-legal-attorneys/ Best, Ruben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Canonical & noindex? Use together
For duplicate pages created by the "print" function, seomoz says its better to use noindex (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not) and JohnMu says its better to use canonical http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=6c18b666a552585d&hl=en What do you think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1