Opengraph or Schema.org - What is your preference?
-
Just wondering whether Mozzer's have a preference when marking up rich snippets.
I have just added Opengraph as per a Whiteboard Friday presentation suggesting that Google will use the meta data as well as schema, mainly for purposes of socially sharing the website details, and I have also used Schema for marking up an address, telephone number, and email.
Is this the right way to do things?
What are your thoughts?
-
May as well kick-start the responses! I'm a Schema fan, it's easy to implement and gives Google and other search engines the information they need.
I don't think you need to be too concerned about one over the other so long as your microformat is, in an of itself, correctly implemented. An advantage of using Schema is that you can use Google Webmaster Tool to check your rich snippet so you have confidence to know it's done right.
But I'm just one opinion
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
I want to set different price type for India and USA through schema. for eaxmple website is abc.com & there is no cookie/country level redirection.
I am currently working on a website (Ed tech) that is doing business in India as well as USA. The courses are same. Content being served is also same. There is no cookie level redirection. The only difference is in the price range and price type. In schema we have set price type as $. We want to set different price type for India and USA through schema. How can we do this? For example given below website ranks for India & USA with the same domain name but prince range that we can setup either in INR or USA
Technical SEO | | DJ_James0 -
FAQ Schema Markup
I was wondering which blog posts would qualify for an FAQ Schema markup. For instance, we have a blog post which is more like a Q&A interview with our customer where our product gets mentioned several times. Would we get dinged for including our product name in the markup? First of all does that kind of blog posts even qualify for the markup? Example of the blog post: https://www.revulytics.com/blog/qa-techsmith-snagit-strategy-lead-daniel-foster
Technical SEO | | revulytics0 -
Updated Title Tag preference
Hi, This was a topic a couple years ago https://mza.seotoolninja.com/community/q/title-tag-use-comma-pipe-or-colon I was wondering if there was any update on this as the consensus on this thread seemed to say using a pipe as a separator is best, but in Moz's title tag recommendations it has hyphen and pipe Primary Keyword - Secondary Keyword | Brand Name Does anyone know if using a pipe | between the primary keyword and secondary has adverse effects? Also, does removing the brand name for the sake of length hurt you in any way? Thanks for the help!
Technical SEO | | AliMac260 -
Schema.org markup for breadcrumbs: does it finally work?
Hi, TL;DR: Does https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList work? It's been some time since I last implemented schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. Back then the situation was that google explicitly discouraged the use of the schema.org markup for breadcrumbs. In my experience it had been pretty hit or miss - sometimes it worked without issues; sometimes it did not work without obvious reason. Consequently, I ditched it for the data-vocabulary.org markup which did not give me any issues. However, I prefer using schema.org and currently a new site is being designed for a client. Thus, I'd like to use schema.org markup for the breadcrumb - but of course only if it works now. Google has dropped the previous warning/discouragements and by now lists a schema.org code https://developers.google.com/structured-data/breadcrumbs based on the new-ish https://schema.org/BreadcrumbList. Has anybody here used this markup on a site (preferably more than one) and can confirm whether or not it is reliably working and showing the breadcrumb trail / site hierarchy in the SERP? Thanks for your answers! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Open Graphs and Schema Markups
Hi Moz, Do I need to duplicate a schema tag if I already have an open graphs tag pertaining to that particular property? Ex. Title of a product. Thanks,
Technical SEO | | Mike.NW0 -
Is it worth adding schema markup to articles?
I know things like location, pagination, breadcrumbs, video, products etc have value in using schema markup. What about things like articles though? Is it worth all the work involved in having the pages mark up automatically? How does this effect SEO, and is it worthwhile? Thanks, Spencer
Technical SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
Setting preferred domain as www or none www
Way back before panda I used to rank for certain keywords pretty well. Of course like many others after panda I lost some of those rankings. I have been getting better since then so its not that bad. I was poking around in Google Webmaster Tools and I noticed something which I need some clarification in. History my site freescrabbledictionary.com used to be indexed as a none www. Then some time ago I can't remember when I set it to www. Tonight I was looking through my webmaster tools and I noticed something that did not make sense to me. In my content keywords section for the none www my list is as follows Content Keywords <form action="https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/keywords-list?hl=en&siteUrl=http://freescrabbledictionary.com/" method="GET"> Keyword Significance 1. scrabble 2. words (2 variants) 3. dictionary 4. cheat 5. finder 6. friends 7. maker (2 variants) 8. noun 9. letter (2 variants) 10. hasbro 11. mattel 12. spear 13. found (2 variants) 14. sowpods 15. freescrabbledictionary 16. builder 17. affiliated 18. search 19. solver 20. lists </form> Then I looked at my www lists and its Content Keywords <form action="https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/keywords-list?hl=en&siteUrl=http://www.freescrabbledictionary.com/" method="GET"> Keyword Significance 1. words (3 variants) 2. scrabble (2 variants) 3. letter (4 variants) 4. points 5. cheat (3 variants) 6. friends (2 variants) 7. finder (2 variants) 8. anagram (2 variants) 9. dictionary 10. tool (2 variants) 11. hasbro 12. mattel 13. spear 14. game (4 variants) 15. mobile 16. affiliated (3 variants) 17. berkshire 18. canada 19. calculations (5 variants) 20. coming (4 variants) </form> My none www version has the order (especially the first 5 keywords) that I want, my www version is no were near it. If I change back to the none www version could I possible see an change in rank? or can it effect it if I change it? I am starting to think I shot myself in the foot when I switched...
Technical SEO | | cbielich0 -
Canonical tag in preferred and duplicate page
Hi, I have a super spiffy (not) CMS that tends to create some pages at the root level of the site (not where I want it) i.e. www.site.com/page.htm as well as the desired location i.e. www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm . Now obviously a canonical tag inserted into the URL at the undesired location would be the best option, however the source code is exactly the same for both pages (can’t change this) i.e. if I put the canonical tag that reads www.site.com/category/keyword/page.htm"/> it will appear in the head section of both pages, the desired URL and the non desired URL. Will a canonical tag inserted into the head section of a the preferred URL directing the search engine spiders pretty much to itself cause more grieft than the solution it offers re duplicate content ? Marc
Technical SEO | | NRMA0