Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8Tdnn-NE0I/AAAAAAAACw...
there is only one l in alot.
[deleted]
Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
31–40 of 80 posts
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#32I am wondering why they didn't go for something that allows for richer semantics like XHTML+RDFa http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
Since RFDa is not in the HTML5 spec yet, right now you can't make valid HTML5 websites that make use of RDFa.
But you don't have to use microdata or microformats; you can still use this schema with RDFa on an XHTML page.
You should be able to express everything in Microdata _and_ RDFa. I don't think RDFa is semantically richer than these other formats.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#33This is going to sound curmudgeonry but it is seems like one more way search engines want to use your data without giving you the page view. It makes allot of technical sense and I can imagine some really great ways to use this data but in the end I guess I would just need to ask "what's in it for us- the content providers?"
I think that's shortsighted thinking. This is about improving the user's search experience. If that happens I think everyone wins.
Most mainstream users are not tech savvy. Imagine a traveling person arrives in a city and spontaneously decides to see a movie. They enter the search 'good movie playing in nowheresville'. As it stands now their query will likely be matched by the keywords 'movie', 'playing', and 'nowheresville'. The returned results might include a news article about local theatres, with no actual focus on reviews. The searcher might get frustrated and just decide to rent a movie instead. However, with schemas in wide use search engines will know exactly what web sites are talking about movies and whether it's in the context of reviews. The searcher can then be passed on to the relevant site.
In other words, do you think it's better to tell search engines this is sort of what I have or this is exactly what I have?
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#34I am wondering why they didn't go for something that allows for richer semantics like XHTML+RDFa http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
as far as my understand goes, this is basically equivalent to a subset of RDFa.
The differences as I understand them are three: * schema.org has an implicit vocabulary, if you want to use more than one you can stil use RDFa and use the schema.org vocab explicitly * some syntactic hacks are missing (curies, chaining) but these do not remove expressiveness. Again, implicit schema. * typed literals are missing. And once more, not really needed when the schema is only one
I still would have preferred if they had used straight RDFa 1.1, but I think their main motivation is that the way the web is going (HTML5) does not seem to be the same it was when RDFa was initially invented (xhtml).
This solves concrete a finite set of problems now, while in the semweb world people still have to agree on how to express a person's name :/
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#35All 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…
Sites that don't employ this don't risk falling in their rankings. This added data allows for richer snippets (which absolutely increase clickthrough ratio), but that won't directly make you rank higher (or lower it their absence).
If your website employs an SEO or webstandardista, you should already have your sites marked up with metadata. Reviews and rich breadcrumbs etc. have been around and supported for years now.
I suppose that since Google wants to solve these problems algorithmically first and foremost, that many of these structures already get recognized. Right now you don't _have_ to mark-up your breadcrumbs, for them to still appear as rich snippets on your search result listing. Google recognized the structure without added mark-up.
For now, I will build the new types in my CMS like a good web developer. That won't cost me any time in the future, and now I'll have a way to separate myself from those that won't add schema's or metadata to their mark-up. So, at the end of the day, I just got more expensive :)
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#36All 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…
Exactly. We already have to support multiple browsers, multiple display sizes, ARIA roles, and more. I don't mind the extra work for the handicap (ARIA), but looking up and adding all this new meta information merely for search engines is going be a pain. In the end, this extra work makes it easier for the search engine by requiring the developer to do more work. I would prefer the reverse, otherwise maybe I need to get into the search business. They are creating a standard that will make it incredibly easy for future search engines.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#37Seems 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.
The HTML data-* attributes are intended for private data only; i.e., to store data to be used as configuration for a Javascript plugin but which does not hold semantic value and cannot be represented as actual content, whereas microdata (which is what theyre using and is also part of the HTML5 specification) is meant only for describing how the content of the page maps to some schema.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#38All 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…
Sites that don't employ this don't risk falling in their rankings. This added data allows for richer snippets (which absolutely increase clickthrough ratio), but that won't directly make you rank higher (or lower it their absence). If your website employs an SEO or webstandardista, you should already have your sites marked up with metadata. Reviews and rich breadcrumbs etc. have been around and supported for years no…
Here's what Google Webmaster Central says about schema.org: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answe...
"Google currently supports rich snippets for people, events, reviews, products, recipes, and breadcrumb navigation, and you can use the new schema.org markup for these types, just as with our regular markup formats. Because we’re always working to expand our functionality and improve the relevance and presentation of our search results, schema.org contains many new types that Google may use in future applications."
"Google doesn’t use markup for ranking purposes at this time—but rich snippets can make your web pages appear more prominently in search results, so you may see an increase in traffic."
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#39Seems 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?
Which format and scheme, with which doctype did you use to get invalid results in the validator?
Microformats should never invalidate any doctype as they are just class-names.
Microdata can be used in valid HTML5 doctype pages.
RDFa can be used in valid xHTML+RDFa doctype pages.
Re: Introducing schema.org: Search engines come together for a richer web
#40So Google both ranks on page speed and encourages you to double your bits by adding a lot of cruft to your html. Wonderful.
at this point, page speed is affected by things like http requests and javascript, something as insignificant as a couple kilobytes of compressable text would have an impact measured in the microseconds
Maybe your pipes are a lot fatter than mine.
kb/us == mb/ms == gb/s
On the other hand, I agree that a even a kilbotye of extra data to have fundamentally better search result pages is a big win for everyone.