Re: Google Structured Data Testing Tool - improved support for multiple independent types

I think this is too strong  statement. The big search engines are using schema.org markup for a multiplicity of purposes, for a basic underdstanding see the old post at

    http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/GoodRelations_for_Semantic_SEO

For Knowledge Panels etc., Googles uses a much bigger part of the vocab as e.g. documented in the Google Dev Recipes for Rich Snippet types.

It's tempting but misleading to just check whether your markup has an immediate visual effect.

Martin


-----------------------------------
martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp




> On 01 Mar 2017, at 01:57, Brian Tremblay <schema@btrem.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/17 7:07 PM, Robb Shecter wrote:
>> What's the relationship between the tool's understanding of
>> schema.org <http://schema.org> and the Google search engine's?
> 
> Not much, afaict.
> 
>> I develop web apps and use the tool to verify that the Google
>> crawlers will successfully parse my pages, and then possibly even
>> make use of the structured data content.
> 
> Google only uses a few types. The ones I've seen used by Google include
> Person, Product, Review, and Recipe. There are probably a few others.
> But most schema.org schemas are not used by any entities, again afaict.
> 
>> Another example: a deep (or new) subclass of Organization or
>> LocalBusiness. If the tool recognizes it, do you happen to know
>> whether the search engine will as well?
> 
> If it's new, probably not.
> 
> In general, schema.org is way out in front on structured data schemas.
> It seems to be driven by author demand, instead of on consumer demand.
> That is, the group creates schemas when members ask for or work on one,
> rather than creating a schema when there's a business, web crawler, or
> other organization that is looking for or needs one.
> 
> That's my impression. If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will be along to
> tell you otherwise.
> 
> -- 
> Brian Tremblay
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 18:16:24 UTC