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: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:09:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPGOeDuwdzhO=7tQzytkYmDi=NihA=eXQgh75cJ1W=CC_hRL_Q@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>
Hi everybody,

Nobody replied to my last email anymore, although I think it's an
interesting discussion ;-).

My last question was: only using lowPrice with AggregateOffer is giving the
'from' price, however the question still remains if AggregateOffer is

This was the case: The keratin treatment is a service, not a product. Just
like keratin treatment, this salon has more services like 'hair removal'
for example.
The clients go to this local business to get the treatments. But for
keratin treatment the price is different for different lenghts of hair.
Hair removal for example has difference prices because different bodyparts
have different prices.

Martin told me:

In general, there are two approaches for modeling product variants with the
> GoodRelations part in schema.org:
> 1. Summarize them into a *range* of products/services, typically with a
> price range (e.g. "Haircuts for women and men, 50 - 100 USD"
> 2. Materialize the variants, i.e. creating one http://schema.org/Product entity
> for each variant.
> If you use variant #2, you should create individual URIs / pages for each
> variant, since as of today, rich snippets / rich captions require that a
> search engine can summarize the whole page into a single snippet, which is
> more difficult if a page contains markup for multiple entities.

I looked at the GoodRelations website, but to be honest, I couldn't find my
way there easily like I could on schema.org, and I could not find anything
to make a pricerange with GoodRelations.
Any help would be appreciated.

Kind regards,


2013/9/5 Willem-Siebe Spoelstra <wsspoelstra@gmail.com>

> @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 Wednesday, 25 September 2013 19:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:31 UTC