Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
googleblog.blogspot.com
Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#2Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators (tested on the w3 validator). Unless, perhaps, you just mark your doctype as html and be done with it?
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#3All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all major sites basically have to implement this or they risk falling in their rankings.
So, at the end of the day, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo just made web development more expensive. They probably also just made the web a better place, too.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#4All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all m…
I'm torn as well. It's a lot of new information to remember and creates a lot of extra work but if the content is more accessible as a result then it might be worth it. I'm also a little wary of the fact that it just seems tacked on to the HTML but I can't think of any other way to handle it.
I'm guessing this is like salt... a little dash'll do it.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#5Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators (tested on the w3 validator). Unless, perhaps, you just mark your doctype as html and be done with it?
Exactly, I wonder why they wouldn't incorporate the data-* attributes to help describe this data AND conform to HTML5 specifications.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#6Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators (tested on the w3 validator). Unless, perhaps, you just mark your doctype as html and be done with it?
Exactly, I wonder why they wouldn't incorporate the data-* attributes to help describe this data AND conform to HTML5 specifications.
Looks like they're using HTML5 microdata: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#7All I could think while reading through the getting started was: that is an awful lot of added text. After a little more thought: that is an awful lot of added work. And while it won't be hard to have tools that make the process easier, the sort of work that goes into adding that data can never be completely automated (otherwise, we would have no need for it). Given that all the search engines will be using it, all m…
I'm torn as well. It's a lot of new information to remember and creates a lot of extra work but if the content is more accessible as a result then it might be worth it. I'm also a little wary of the fact that it just seems tacked on to the HTML but I can't think of any other way to handle it. I'm guessing this is like salt... a little dash'll do it.
I would say it's just more easy for them to parse/extract data, it shouldn't change much to the user (excerpt special cases in browsers).
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#8For a site put together by search engines, the URL structure for the site search is atrocious. "#q=Product" and not "?q=Product"? Who thought that was a good idea?
Site also looks a bit like spam. Needs more Firefox-esk awesome graphics, imo.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#9The question remains: Who needs this?
I am still not really convinced that it is possible to integrate handcoded schemas for a wide range of use cases into search results in a meaningful way.
The solution Google proposes here will also restrain the content of websites in a lot of ways if it becomes widely adopted. Look at the recipes-example, it defines markup for including nutrition information for recipes:
"Can contain the following child elements: servingSize, calories, fat, saturatedFat, unsaturatedFat, carbohydrates, sugar, fiber, protein, cholesterol"
Every company that serves recipes on the web and decides not to offer this information because it deems other properties of recipes more important is now at a disadvantage. Google will show more information about the recipes of their competitors and presumably also rank them higher because they have included 'valuable' markup information in their recipe.
This approach favors shallow information ressources over complex ones as the former can be more easily parsed by metadata-crawlers.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#10So Google both ranks on page speed and encourages you to double your bits by adding a lot of cruft to your html. Wonderful.