Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there's also a space in "a lot"
But, there are two Ls and no spaces in "allot"[1]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allot
That's a different word than the OP's intended meaning. allot != a lot
Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
71–80 of 80 posts
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo, this my first response as well. What happens when users stop clicking through to content because it's being served up by Google, Bing or Yahoo? I guess it could actually hurt them as well. If users aren't providing information back to the algorithm in the form of a click through related to a search term, don't the search engines also risk losing a key signal of relevance?
Why unilaterally assert this will decrease click-throughs? If I see immediately relevant data for restaurant hours, movie times, a person's bio, etc, I'm far more likely to click-through and start looking at a menu, making a reservation, or getting more background. They may well expect increased click-throughs leading to more site traffic for those who adopt.
For me this varies based on device. If I'm at my laptop then I'll usually click through, but if I'm on my phone I won't unless I have to.
It takes too long to render sites with loads of images and adverts on my phone, so I always dread clicking a search result.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#73I thought that snatching the type of content of my pages should be their job. I'm so naive.
No problem, I'll add a few kbytes to every single page of my sites, so I can replicate the information I've already stated in a number of sitemaps, video sitemaps, headers and XML files.
P.S: I'm not agaisnt standardization at all, I'm just saying, this comes a bit late.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#74Did Google just deprecate microformat?
Yeah, what is itemscope and itemprop? That's a kick in the butt for us Microformats users.
The issue I found with microformats when I was evaluating it was is that there was no way to automatically transform a microformatted file into a native data structure without first knowing the schema. Writing a microformat-to-JSON parser is hard because you have no way of knowing which classes are significant and which are just there for styling.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#75All 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 added the 200 bytes/page to my ecommerce site in about 5 minutes.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, what is itemscope and itemprop? That's a kick in the butt for us Microformats users.
The issue I found with microformats when I was evaluating it was is that there was no way to automatically transform a microformatted file into a native data structure without first knowing the schema. Writing a microformat-to-JSON parser is hard because you have no way of knowing which classes are significant and which are just there for styling.
Isn't that true of schema.org (microdata) too? That's not a very apt criticism.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#77Seems 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?
> Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators Why would I care? What matters to me is that Google gets people to my site.
some tools will throw out misleading errors on 'invalid' markup, and you will have to spend time justifying to clients why these invalid markups are OK. accessibility tools might have problems (not sure now, but I remember some tools years ago having problem on some invalid markup).
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#78Hi all:
Two comments:
1. The GoodRelations RDFa vocabulary remains the superior way of sending rich data to Google and Yahoo; even Bing just announced they will support it in the future.
2. As for tooling, here are two super-easy ways of adding rich GoodRelations data to your site: - http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/grsnippetgen/ This creates a snippet of a few additional divs/spans based on your data; simply paste it before (!) the respective visible content. You are done ;) For products, see the effect in http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets - if you are using a standard shop package, e.g. Magento, osCommerce, Joomla/Virtuemart, or WordPress/WPEC, there are free extension modules that add GoodRelations:
http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Shop_extensions
A similar module for Prestashop and Oxid eSales is in the making.
Best Martin Hepp
Disclaimer: I am the inventor and lead developer of GoodRelations. GoodRelations is free to use, remix, or adapt under a Creative Commons license.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems that if you use this, your documents won't be able to be considered 'valid' by validators Why would I care? What matters to me is that Google gets people to my site.
some tools will throw out misleading errors on 'invalid' markup, and you will have to spend time justifying to clients why these invalid markups are OK. accessibility tools might have problems (not sure now, but I remember some tools years ago having problem on some invalid markup).
Not likely, few clients even know what markup is. I'll take the extra traffic and suffer the occasional nosy client any day.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
some tools will throw out misleading errors on 'invalid' markup, and you will have to spend time justifying to clients why these invalid markups are OK. accessibility tools might have problems (not sure now, but I remember some tools years ago having problem on some invalid markup).
Not likely, few clients even know what markup is. I'll take the extra traffic and suffer the occasional nosy client any day.
I've dealt with state agencies and higher ed depts that get their dander up over this sort of stuff.