As I'm new to the SEO, can someome guide me regarding where to use Meta Title , description and keyword or is there a way to do it with json-ld only. I mean to say that can I use only json-ld to specify all the meta attributes required by a search engine or should i use both, as Meta tags to define the Page meta and Json-ld for structured data. Also, please throw some light on the use of "meta property= og:", means what is the use of "og:" here.
Can I rely only on Json-Ld ( Without using any meta data)
Related
In a web page each registered company has own profile page with a list of records belonging to a company. I'm using Schema.org Organization structured data for that page and that schema markup requires URL property. As I understand it should contain e.g company home page url. The problem is that we do not store that kind of information.
If company profile URL in our page is: www.mypage.com/unique-company-profile can I use same url in schema URL property or it has to be an URL with a different domain?
Schema.org doesn’t require the url property for Organization (it never requires any property). Consumers (like Google Search) require properties for their features (like rich results). So, it’s perfectly fine to have an Organization without url; you might just not get a certain feature in a certain search engine.
As far as Schema.org is concerned, the url property can have a site-internal URL as value. A common structure is to use url for your own page about the organization, and sameAs for the organization’s official site.
<link itemprop="url" href="/organizations/acme" />
<a itemprop="sameAs" href="https://acme.example/">official site</a>
That said, again, a consumer might have certain restrictions; if you care about the feature they offer, you have to check their documentation.
I implemented a Google Sitelinks Searchbox on my home page.
I've checked https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/sitelinks-searchbox and it doesn't mention which format I should use for the results page.
Which Schema.org type can be used for my own SERPs? Should I use an XML sitemap, JSON-LD, Microdata?
You can use the SearchResultsPage type.
Each result could be a WebPage (or a more specific type, like ItemPage if it applies).
To connect the SearchResultsPage with the WebPage results, you can use the mainEntity property with an ItemList value. You can find RDFa examples in this answer.
I have a typo3 Plugin (my own) which have lots of sub pages.
Now all Pages got their own canonical URL ... but I want that they only have the canonical from the page which contains the Plugin.
Is that possible?
Thanks in advance.
As far as the content changes with the parameters these parameters belong to the canonical URL.
You might not want your parameter specified pages indexed, but that needs other metatags than a non unique canonical url.
A canonical URL is used to have a unique URL for a page which can be accessed with multiple URLs. So Search engines know which URL to use and don't think of duplicate content.
If you really want to fool search engines with multiple content for the same URL you can of cause generate the base URL without all parameters and use it as canonical URL. Mind the value of config.linkVars. Just build your meta tag by hand using page.headerData.
I'm using some Microdata to describe a blog post, and I'm surprised by the value return for Schema.org’s BlogPosting by the Google Developers Testing Tool.
I would have expected it to be the itemprop url, not a merge of the website URL and the item id.
Am I doing something wrong, or is it only a Google display issue?
<div itemscope="itemscope"
itemprop="blogPost"
itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting"
id="foobar">
<a itemprop="url" href="/realone">real</a>
</div>
Value returned by https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/:
BlogPosting: http://www.example.com/foobar
url: http://www.example.com/realone
This is strange.
It’s definitely not conforming to the Microdata Note. Apart from Microdata’s itemref attribute, HTML5’s id attribute has no special meaning in Microdata.
If Google wants to use the id value anyway, they should at least generate the URL with a fragment identifier, i.e., http://www.example.com/#foobar.
My guess is that they are (probably unintentionally) handling HTML5’s id attribute the same way as Microdata’s itemid attribute. If using itemid instead of id in your example, Google’s Testing Tool output is the same, but this time correct.
I would like to know what are the allowed values for the Open Graph og:product type, og:availability property. It is defined as an enum property (see http://graph.facebook.com/schema/og/product#availability).
I have struggled for a while trying to make Open Graph product tags work according to Pinterest Rich Pins specification without any success. (see http://developers.pinterest.com/rich_pins/ -> Open Graph -> availability). The example there works fine, both Facebook and Pinterest debuggers parse it correctly.
<meta property="og:availability" content="instock" />
But if this value is changed by any of the ones which are described in the Rich Pins documentation (in stock", "preorder", "backorder", "out of stock", "discontinued"). Both Facebook and Pinterest debuggers fail to parse the content of this og:availability property.
Also the documented value documented in Rich Pins for the meta tag property looks wrong to me but og:availability and product:availability are valid ones
The latest version of the Facebook documentation lists the following as valid values for the og:availability property: instock, oos, pending.
The correct answer for "instock" is "in stock" with space. After many tries, and consulting the product Schema, this works.