• Barry Moorecombe

    Great article, thank you. What Schema recommendations would you make? What critical ones would you include?

  • http://www.socialpositives.com/ Mohammed Anzil

    Excellent article….. Thanks for sharing….

  • seoservices4smallbusiness

    Its good to know about schema.org I will work on it. Thanks for sharing !!

  • bustya

    Um, microdata has been removed from HTML5 in favor of a single semantic markup of RDFa. Read the current W3C spec for html5 as well as

  • bustya

    btw, you can still use schema.org’s ontology with RDFa.

  • Rich Benci

    John – great to see this fantastic article from a fellow San Diegan! Implementing markup manually can be a drain on resources and prone to error. Finding an automated method to implement Schema.org can help it get done quickly and maintain it properly over time. That’s the challenge for many mid-sized web sites.

  • derekedmond

    bustya – per this reference (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1211158?hl=en&ref_topic=1088472) it would seem like Google in particular is still favoring schema over RDFa however?

  • bustya

    yes i’ve seen that, I suspect it’s out of date. The latest version of my work is in microdata because it’s suggested on that very page, I’ll probably update to RDFa within a year.
    I tried several methods of keeping my markup to a minimum with microdata, mainly: grouping itemprops, acquiring itemprops from nested objects as well as using the itemref. After a couple of months of that I studied up on RDFa and realized it’s more flexible than microdata and from the examples I examined it seems the syntax is lighter. Also RDFa encourages extension while microdata only allows for it with the additionalType property to extend it and sameAs to be more specific.
    There’s a comment below I can read but not reply to, to him, Dan Scott, –agreed on all points except for “microdata being the edge because more are using it”, I don’t think that matters (to Google) if both are supported. Also, your comments suggest an eye on temporary gains in SERs rather than on building a richer semantic web. In the big picture, I think RDFa extends ontologies (such as schema, goodrelations, productontology) easier and more naturally.

  • Cokecan

    Schema has been around for quite a while already – so what exactly is the news here?? Stuff like GoodRelations for Schema.org and implementation for E-commerce is something that I am missing in the above…

  • http://www.myonlinetraininghub.com/ Philip Treacy

    I found the schema.org doco hard to understand and as Rich has said, very time consuming to implement and maintain. not really attractive to small businesses to implement this. so what does that mean? Only big companies with the budget and manpower get to take advantage of it, surely that’s not right.

  • derekedmond

    You make valid points with community support, flexibility, and long term vision. We’re only using very specific instances and situations with markup which hopefully can transfer to RDFa easily enough should the broader recommendation change. Thanks for the deeper insight

  • derekedmond

    While I don’t think schema.org is easy to read I think it’s just as head spinning as digging into Open Graph or RDFa. The potential frustration to me is having to make 2 – 3 overhauls if search engines change their stance on which vocabulary they prefer

  • John E Lincoln

    The article covers new points and insight on schema. You are right it has been around.

  • John E Lincoln

    There is definitely some truth here. I agree.

  • bustya

    I believe this is okay with the linking policy here since it’s on point. Here’s the richsnippets results for the homepage of my current project marked up with microdata, it’s still sandboxed (noindex,nofollow). I’ve yet to see anyone using it as much as I have here, each page and object is marked up. The only text not marked up is punctuation.

  • http://abc-podatki.pl/ ABC Podatki

    For sure schema.org is the future of semantic search, the biggest change is to merge branding (big offline marketing agencies) with sem (small agencies, freelancers)

  • bustya

    Hey Derek. It’s important to note the differences between RDFa and microdata are syntax, not vocabularies. The vocabularies (ontologies) are still valid regardless of the syntax using them. So schema.org, productontology.org, purl.org/goodrelations/, and so on will work regardless. The syntax difference is:
    1. the way they reference namespaces
    2. the attributes used in the markup.
    For analogy, consider the differences between XML and JSON formats, both can contain the same information their difference is syntax.

  • http://blackhatpwnage.com/ igl00

    Love schema stuff!

  • derekedmond

    Thanks bustya – this dialogue has been very helpful

  • http://www.loriswebs.com/ Lori Eldridge

    I just checked the top ranking sites for two keyword phrases that I monitor and none of them contain schema markup, so I’m wondering the benefit of doing it.

  • http://www.omiod.com Omiod

    May I suggest this Chrome extension to view and verify the meta data in a page? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/meta-seo-inspector/ibkclpciafdglkjkcibmohobjkcfkaef