W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Error Incomplete microdata with schema.org

From: Willem-Siebe Spoelstra <wsspoelstra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:26:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPGOeDuZN5Dv8A7OP7wfx3d8eyv_iZcXm9aiVgWeqxTWc87CnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Alexander Shubin <ajax@yandex-team.ru>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
@Thad, I will tell you what my problem was with the word 'Service'.

In English this can mean two thing:

*#1)* A company (a restaurant); = http://schema.org/Organization
*#2)* A service (a keratin treatment) = http://schema.org/Product

In Dutch the word 'Service' does not mean 'A company', however Google
translated it like 'Service' which caused a lot of confusion here!
Anyway, I think that for #2, the Product schema markup should be used.

@Martin, I'm still not sure if AggregateOffer is apprioriate to markup the
pricerange, because in the explenation this looks like more for comparison
websites.

Some extra info:

The next question I had to answer for myself:

*#3)* can I let people review the company as a whole (so #1) on the company
website;
*#4)* or should I let people review the different services the company
offers (so #2).

If I let people rate the company as a whole (so #3), I would like that the
stars in Google show up on my homepage URL.
If I let people rate the different services of the company (so #4), I would
like that the stars in Google show up on the specific URL for that service
(product).

To be honest, I think #3 is not possible at all....

Why? Google tells us this:

When using review markup, *the main topic of the page needs to be about a
> specific product or service*.


PS: I think Google means 'a company' here with the word 'service': there
are a lot of websites that list company's that can be rated by the public,
so they have specific pages for specific company's.
This is the same principle as #4 what I explained above.

On this YouTube video (
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/146645#Individual_reviews)
they say:

*If you use reviewcount on your page for aggregate review markup, make sure
> your page uses markup for each review!*


So, if you let your website visitors rate your company as a whole, the only
appropriate place for the rating starts in Google would be the homepage,
agree?

- I *never* see any homepage of a business act like a review page,
- plus I never see any working examples where stars show up in Google on
the homepage.

Before ,Google had a working link to 'Learn more about Google for Local
businesses' page, this link is now dead. But there they told:

How will Google treat businesses posting testimonials with review mark up
> on their own site? Will these be treated as a review by the Place Page?
> Google's goal is to provide a comprehensive, unbiased, and credible view
> of businesses. *Reviews should come from an independent source to remain
> trustworthy.* *Posting testimonials or using review markup on a business
> site will generally not improve how its listing appears on Google. As with
> any form of unuseful content, reviews markup intended to game search
> results will only undermine the listing's credibility and may negatively
> affect its ranking.* See our Webmaster Guidelines<http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769>
> .


When I read all the information I gave you above, I made the conclusion for
myself that the rich snipppets with star ratings are not ment for reviews
on your business websites about the business as a whole.
Ofcourse you can add this kind a reviews to your sites, but it's not going
to help you with the rich snippets I believe.

I'm curious if you all agree with me on this.

Kind regards,

Willem



2013/9/4 Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Martin Hepp <
> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>
>> In both cases, http://schema.org/Product should be fine.
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>
>> > Your keratin treatment...
>> >
>> > Is it a Product (customer applies themselves either a topical creme,
>> mixture, etc.) ?
>> >
>> > Or is it a Service (customer walks into a clinic, or has a specialist
>> arrive at their front door that treats them in-home) ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> Martin,
>
> That is not a very good approach in my opinion...
>
> http://schema.org/ProfessionalService
>
> http://schema.org/EmergencyService
>
> http://schema.org/FinancialService
>
>
> If we equate "Keratin Treatment" with anything... it would be the
> equivalent of "Plumbing Repair" ... or "A/C Repair" ... or "Plastic
> Surgery... or "Hair Cutting"... the verb form (Service) that a Service
> Provider actually provides...
>
> But Martin is saying that http://schema.org/Product should be used for
> Services as well ?  "Plumbing" or "A/C Repair" or "Plastic Surgery"  is the
> same idea as "Keratin Treatment".   To turn those into Products just feels
> and looks very wrong.
>
> http://schema.org/Demand has the businessFunction property to hold the
> "repair" but then ...
> Where does the concept of "Plumbing" or specifically "Plumbing Repair" or
> "A/C Repair" fall under a http://schema.org/Demand
> or elsewhere ?
>
> Even I do not see the correct correlation to a Service "Keratin Treatment"
>  versus a specific Product like a "Blue stripped T-Shirt" at H&M, I will
> admit.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> --
> -Thad
> Thad on Freebase.com <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry>
> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 07:27:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:30 UTC