Re: Semantic Markup at (IT) companies - living examples

Hi Martin,

thanks a lot again for your valuable feedback.

On 9/10/2015 10:19 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:
> Now, the major search engines have indicated that they prefer offers for concrete products over "umbrella" descriptions, but this is really mostly a Google perspective.
> If you want to get Google Rich Snippets for products, a page should describe an offer for specific product. Since this is what most commercial sites are after, this is the dominating pattern in markup. By and large, the patterns in commercial sites are mostly determined by what is known to be actually consumed by the major search engines.
> But if you are not after rich snippets for products, it is perfectly fine to use "umbrella" descriptions of your range of products and services and price range information for those.

Well at the end I would like to be able to provide websites for 
companies (i.e. a ("real"/connected) knowledge graph that describes the 
company is embedded) that can be effectively consumed by our famous 
search engine vendors. So that at the end customers can find rather 
easily a specific company by offered service, utilised/wanted technology 
or intended target audience in (maybe) a specific country or region of 
the world (analogues like one can do it (more or less) with a 
mercantile directory).
Therefore, the search engine needs to understand the knowledge graph of 
the company at its best. That's why, I would like to make use of 
"" as much as possible and do it in the " way". 
Thereby, rich snippets (if available for the utilised entity type, e.g. 
product or web page) or "knowledge graph widgets" (e.g. for the 
organizations themselves) are a nice and informative side effect. 
Nevertheless, at the end it only matters (and helps), if we can make the 
connection between customer and company (i.e. contracts finally). The 
knowledge graph of the company is a nice and interesting side effect for 
the company itself (but nothing worth, if one cannot make money somehow 
+ somewhere at the end ;) ).



PS: maybe schemaorg:Product is then probably not the best way to 
describe such "umbrella" services

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 17:38:44 UTC