Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi WebTalent,

To give further support to your own Q&A, we've found that Google Local has worked well. I've found that Miriam Ellis has some good stuff to say on several questions related to Local and doctors / practices, such as the discussion about dr. names vs practice names.

My plan was to implement "medicalOrganization" in the footer of every page to define the company, as opposed to "Physician", as it's a larger group with 16 locations.

Maybe my assumption is wrong, but it seems like "Physician" should refer to an individual practitioner's business; because it inherits properties from "Thing", "Place", "Organization" and "LocalBusiness", my thinking was that "medicalOrganization" would be more appropriate for the group.

That said, if "Physician" inherits properties from "medicalOrganization" (via subClassOf), would "Physician" be the best way to mark up / define the group?

Thanks for the help – I like the idea, and will probably incorporate "members" into the "medicalOrganization" or "Physician" schema, whichever seems to be most appropriate / relevant.

Hey all,

I'm looking to implement Schema tagging for a local business and am unsure of whether to use "Physician" or "Person" for a handful of doctors. Though "Physician" seems like it should be the obvious answer, Schema.org states that it should refer to "A doctor's office" instead of a physician.

The properties used in "Physician" seem to apply to a physician's practice, and not an actual physician. Properties are sourced from the "Thing", "Place", "Organization", and "LocalBusiness" schemas, so I'm wondering if "Person" might be a more appropriate implementation since it allows for more detail (affiliations, awards, colleagues, jobTitle, memberOf), but I wanna make sure I get this right.

Also, I'm wondering if the "Physician" schema allows for properties pulled from the "Person" schema, which I think would solve everything.

For reference:

http://schema.org/Person

http://schema.org/Physician

Thanks, everyone! Let me know how off-base my strategy is, and how I might be able to tidy it up.

I used on a handful of pages recently and noticed that they're still popping up in the Google search index. I'd like to keep these from appearing, so I figured I needed a directive statement with stronger semantic meaning.

From what I understand, is what I'm looking for. Using this will keep Google from not only crawling the page, but indexing the page, as well.

I decided to see what the official robotstxt.org website said about it, so I checked (link here):

the NOFOLLOW directive only applies to links on this page. It's entirely likely that a robot might find the same links on some other page without a NOFOLLOW (perhaps on some other site), and so still arrives at your undesired page.

So, is their explanation saying that the page itself will be indexed, but the content / links on it won't be followed / indexed? Let me hear your thoughts, mozzers.

Hi WebTalent,

To give further support to your own Q&A, we've found that Google Local has worked well. I've found that Miriam Ellis has some good stuff to say on several questions related to Local and doctors / practices, such as the discussion about dr. names vs practice names.