In general the schema markup is great though. It's semantic web stuff done right: It's not hard to implement, it has tangible benefits, and there is proper tooling around it like the schema markup tester. And best of all: While this is mainly about changing how search results look, there is nothing stopping other software from using that markup. It's really one of the positive things Google is involved in.
It's only frustrating if what you want to do is not supported. I'd love to markup my processor and graphics card benchmark results (the ordered result list), but there is nothing in the schema that would allow me to do that :/
Is it though? Seems to me not necessarily a positive thing. If Google can serve the information on your website already on the SERP, the user won't have to visit your website anymore.
Isn't this the whole point of the semantic web - making information machine readable so that humans don't have to visit the web page anymore?
Are you publishing data to help/inform people? or do you want traffic on your site (for ads)?
Examples like Wikipedia is about sharing information, not so much about growing traffic..
There are lots of services where getting the information to interested parties is the goal, and getting website visitors is only useful as a means to that go, rather than the other way around.
If that's not your interest, well, no one is making you use schema.org semantic markup.
You're probably one of the most qualified persons in the world to say how such a markup has to look. Propose something at public-vocabs@w3.org or ask for it on https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues?
(But of course once you do, Google - and others - could parse your data and deprive you of site visitors because they can answer queries natively)
Isn't that basically the whole point? That information provided by sites can become independent from those sites? For scraping, re-rendering, modifying, etc
They have various values, like integers, etc all setup, They don't have a benchmark exactly, but they have Review, which can hold various values, such as:
PropertyValue or QualitativeValue or QuantitativeValue or StructuredValue
so you can record both opinion based values and discrete values about various properties. Plus Review holds an overall value(AggregateRating ).
Sure they don't have a discrete type "GraphicsCard", but they do have generalized things, with value based items you can store about a thing you are calling a Graphics Card.
So I think it's totally possible, but I've only spent a few minutes looking, so I may be missing something.
But how would you express that you have a list of those aggregate ratings, which are ordered on the same dimension? In general I'm struggling with how to create lists with the schema, and I'm not aware of them being used anyway. I might miss something.
But I think https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2405 would cover it, a benchmark could be expressed as a ranked list type of a guide. It being an open and recent issue makes me think that probably it's really not possible to express yet.
Edit: I completely missed that this might already be merged, https://schema.org/Guide. I just missed it in the Changelog! It's part of the pending section.
I know Google supports some of them (Product, Recipe, Article, etc...). This would support all of them as well as a way to push Actions (eg, OrderAction to order food from a restaurang)
Websites would expose json+ld data instead of html and clients could decide how these responses would render and interact with.
Does anything like this exist?
The site is still up, but I remember trying it a while back and getting a lot of errors, so not sure if it's in a usable state or not.
Say I wanted a Schema for what I think of as a "Protein" or "Gene", how would I know that one exists or that I should write one myself?
It would be nice if Google could shed some light what properties they consider the most useful and what can be used for special SERP widgets. One thing that I especially was mystified by were the Actions eg ViewActions or SearchActions. Are ViewActions just specifications for viewing the page in some app? And SearchActions for showing that you have search implemented, which might be shown in the SEO result as a search bar?
The importance of SEO for search engines is always not known, we just guess what we should do to it more pleasant for search engines.
I guess, they never tell exactly what is important because of abusers and SEO spammers, otherwise a simple library could take care of it completely. We would see web frameworks to static site generators that get the most out of it automatically. That could be a really easier world to live in.
The structured data docs is a godo starting point [1]
1: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/article
Can somebody point me to some real cases?
If more sites adopted the schema properly, it would also be a breeze to convert units on ingredients, extract images and instructions for recipes, and so on. Right now it's on maybe 1/3 of recipe sites I investigate. Ironically, the bigger the company behind the recipe, the less likely they are to use the standard schema.
Extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/recipe-filter/ahlc...
https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=h...
According to this page[1], "Over 10 million sites use Schema.org to markup their web pages and email messages.".
Can somebody point me to some real cases?
See this Quora thread[2].
[1]: https://schema.org/
[2]: https://www.quora.com/Who-has-examples-of-websites-which-hav...
https://developer.api.nhs.uk/documentation/content-api#docs-...
Yoast is a pretty popular WordPress SEO tool with Schema.org support.
Any product that offers Google AMP support has to support Schema.org. Same goes for Google News.
Now, working on a new project, I think I'm only going to stick with 'breadcrumbs' and that's it.
The thing is that I don't like how Google is evolving. The "take everything and use it for their own profit" attitude while giving less and less space to the publishers as time goes by.
