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

On 3/1/17 10:15 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>>> 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.

> 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

Well that looks like Good Relations trying to sell itself. 
Understandable from their point of view  -- they want devs to use Good 
Relations vocabs -- but it's not a very convincing reason to use it.

 From the Good Relations page you cited:

> ...the extra data you provide does a lot more that feeding rich
> snippets: Today's search engines try to assess the individual
> relevance of a page for a given query, taking into account the
> location, time, identity, profile, and preferences of the person
> behind the query.
>
> Google, for instance, uses 200 - 300 signals from a page to assess
> the relevance and ideal ranking of a given page. So someone from
> London will see a different page on rank #1 for "pizza" than someone
> from San Francisco etc.

Sure, but those signals are not necessarily related to microdata 
vocabularies.

> Now, rich data inside the page can be used by the search engines to
> do much more subtle assessments of the relevance, because
> GoodRelations allows site-owners to communicate

"can be used" != "is used"

> Even if such data is not shown in the rich snippet for a page, it
> will increasingly be used by major search engines as a signal for
> relevance.

So they claim. But there's not a lot of evidence from the search 
engines, or from any groups, that more than a handful of vocabs are 
being used.

-- 
Brian Tremblay

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2017 22:02:28 UTC