- From: Brian Tremblay <schema@btrem.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:52:11 -0700
- To: public-schemaorg@w3.org
On 3/20/17 8:02 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > May I suggest that speculating on the exact behaviour and internal > structure of search engines (whether my employer or any other) is > unlikely to be a productive use of this mailing list, or the inboxes > of the several hundred people on it. > > Those who hope for an explicit list of exactly how each search > engine handles structured data should turn to the documentation > sites published by that search engine. You are unlikely to get a lot > more detail here or on the schema.org site. The point I was trying to make is not specific to search engines. It's not, does Google use HealthAndBeautyBusiness? or will Google use MedicalSpa? It's broader: does it make sense to create a new vocab for every imaginable business, every imaginable building, every imaginable service, etc. if services are not looking for that level of specificity? I imagine LocalBusiness would be good enough for a huge number of local businesses, be they book stores, hardware stores, bike shops, or groceries. > we really can't keep having the "but does/will > Google/Bing/Yahoo/Yandex/etc explicitly use it?" thread here every 3 > weeks If this topic keeps coming up, that's an indication that the community is concerned about the relevance of schema.org and the vocabs that are being created. I don't see the point in pooh-poohing the question. -- Brian Tremblay
Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 22:52:47 UTC