Ryan Levering

@robemilakovic @darcyburk @googlesearchc @lilyraynyc Yes! One of the main points of this is that Person is so ambiguous and used in every type of markup right now so that it's practically impossible to understand what that Person is on the page or especially trigger a SC report on

@darcyburk @googlesearchc @lilyraynyc is there any difference in using Person markup vs ProfilePage markup?

Today we are announcing support for discussion forum and profile page structured data on Google Search, including new reports in Search Console. Learn more: developers.google.com/search/blog/20…

@jdevalk @googlesearchc Good question, but in practice `about` is more fuzzy and could a) easily lead to multiple things b) IMO has a slight more topical rather than structural semantics and c) we have precedence of other SD already using mainEntity.

@rrlevering @googlesearchc That’s what I thought but wanted to check. Also, why use `mainEntity` and not `about`?

@jdevalk @googlesearchc Well, a long-form single author blog post isn't really the same as a forum posting (by schema.org or general convention). So that's not the target of these guidelines. However, all of our comment guidelines are normalizing, so feel free to use this as a template.

@googlesearchc Would you like to see this for all blog post comment threads?

@azadhossen241 @googlesearchc ProfilePage is meant to be used on pages that are primarily about a particular user/organization (think account page or "about me" pages). So it would not be good to use it on content-focused pages (articles/blogs/discussion forums/etc).

@googlesearchc Does profilePage should be on user page only? Or in every pages of the users?

I barely post but I'm not doing it here anymore. I have little to lose by switching to Mastodon or at least stopping on Twitter. rrlevering@techhub.social

To give another very current example, schema.org/brand which is currently the #3 warned thing in our new Merchant Listing report. <1% of the web points brand to Organization, 50% uses Brand, and 49% use a raw string even though that's technically invalid.

In case you're a structured data geek (like me) and you've ever wondered about how Google handles (or doesn't handle) invalid or ambiguous strings in schema.org ingestion. github.com/schemaorg/sche…

@rustybrick I think the word was "some" :P. And it's actually way cooler than the message belies, imo, because it's not a patch fix. We're now calculating it more accurately.

Google Search Console mislabelled many rich results issues as errors, when they were warnings. Google has moved those errors, so you may see a lot of changes in those rich results reports today/tomorrow seroundtable.com/google-search-…

@cyberandy We are actively working on a parity between the two ingestion types. I think you should have some markup on the page for the product, but I'm not sure you should fully specify those pricing models because we don't have recommendations/internal consistency for those yet.

@rrlevering Thanks Ryan for the clarification. In this specific scenario (i.e. Black Friday deals) would you suggest to solely rely on the Merchant feed or shall we use SD as well?

Most of these rich results in #ecommerce #SEO can be triggered by SD, the Merchant feed or a combination of both. Thanks @brodieseo for keeping track of these changes 👇

@cyberandy This is not necessarily a sign that we "support" anything. RRT does not show errors for fields we do not consume (unlike validator.schema.org). The data tree also does not filter to supported fields.

It is interesting to notice that Google already supports the schema.org/SalePrice, as you can see from this test I did here wor.ai/M6knVX👇

@_PaulLovell @ImageSnippets Wow, those numbers are so different from what I see in usage, they must not go very deep on those domains. I wish microformats was that dead sometimes, it would make some of our handling code a lot simpler. :).

Really 28% of the top 10 million sites have no structured data!! Hands Up If you think they are missing something

Oh Microdata....why do you give me so many problems....human readable HTML annotation and machine-readable schema.org specs are always at odds

@JarnoVanDriel Unfortunately that didn't make it in this launch but it's a high priority now that we have a base recommendation. There's a lot of complexity in the topic both internally and on the web.

@rrlevering Awesome!!! Though I hope soon we'll see ProductGroup markup examples show up as well in: developers.google.com/search/docs/ad…

Very excited about this launch. It's been a while in coming and required lots of work between schema development, data ingestion, Search console reporting, etc. I like that it opens up more options for standardized data sharing of this information.

@Indiequest1 @googlesearchc @AntonLittau @Chibuzor_SEO @sanjusanwal @kimjolaoso @chy_ayon @ChrisRadny @KrisHolten @Barbededarwin @SamGooch @JohnMu @dariusz_w @thijsvanhal @am_giaquinto That's a tricky question to answer in general since SD is used in many ways. SD is used most strongly with targeted features but it used like text on the page in some general understanding ways. Hence why we recommend identifiers for instance: youtu.be/hUHjeDylhE8?t=…

@rrlevering @googlesearchc @AntonLittau @Chibuzor_SEO @sanjusanwal @kimjolaoso @chy_ayon @ChrisRadny @KrisHolten @Barbededarwin @SamGooch @JohnMu @dariusz_w @thijsvanhal @am_giaquinto Ryan is this something you work on? I wanted to confirm if SD gets used in other contexts outside of rich snippets when processing pages. I.e to just generally understand the relationships between entities on the page. For example this page is about person X who has Job Y @ org X

Thanks to everyone who submitted questions for our experimental SEO office hours! The team has gone through and answered a ton for you. Check out the recording on our channel: youtu.be/d2iWth9lauY

@Indiequest1 @googlesearchc @AntonLittau @Chibuzor_SEO @sanjusanwal @kimjolaoso @chy_ayon @ChrisRadny @KrisHolten @Barbededarwin @SamGooch @JohnMu @dariusz_w @thijsvanhal @am_giaquinto The majority of Google's SD features support and encourage subtypes. Rich snippets should definitely be good but I think @JohnMu suggestion is a good way to check in general.

@googlesearchc @AntonLittau @Chibuzor_SEO @sanjusanwal @kimjolaoso @chy_ayon @ChrisRadny @KrisHolten @Barbededarwin @SamGooch @JohnMu @dariusz_w @thijsvanhal @am_giaquinto I had a quick follow up question regarding schema.org usage. If I used a subtype of a supported type I.e a comedy event is that valid for rich snippets or disregarded entirely or something else? Cc @JohnMu

@danbri @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 @searchliaison @googlesearchc Honestly, every data highlighter schema needs a complete update. DH still works but the tagging schemas are out of line with what we now recommend.

@rrlevering @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 @searchliaison @googlesearchc “Category (additionalType): The type of business. For example Hardware or Clothing. You can tag more than one category.” Maybe schema.org/category could fill the gap better, with a little tidying?

Google has Local Business structured data for specifying multiple types in Local Business structured data, specify them in an array and do not use additionalType seroundtable.com/google-local-b…

@JarnoVanDriel @danbri @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 Maybe the spec says that and we just don't have a compliant parser? We use the first one as the prefix for relative properties but allow multiple vocabularies in the itemtype list just as easily as jsonld.

@rrlevering @danbri @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 Does this include multiple vocabularies? Because if I remember correctly the underlying issue was that microdata doesn't allow for multiple vocabs to be used and to be able to work around this additionalType was added.

@JarnoVanDriel @danbri @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 Growth of microdata is fairly stagnant but it was still more seen on the web until last year. There are use cases where you are literally annotating HTML content rather than mainly providing metadata where copying the complete textual contents can be off-putting for adoption.

@rrlevering @danbri @icapulet @rustybrick @JohnMu @alexjan00326427 Really? In can imagine there's plenty of legacy stuff out there but it has been years since I've heard about any new microdata implementations (even more rarer: RDFa)