Why do some reputable publishers have problems with their microdata?

[Edward_Sturm]

I'm using the Google Structured Data Testing Tool to test: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool

NY Times and Women's Health being two good examples.

These two reputable publishers don't seem to have the microdata they've implemented recognized. Are they doing something wrong or is there a problem with the tool?

[Edward_Sturm]

It looks like Women's Health is using RDFa. Why they would be using this instead of JSON-LD or microdata I don't know...

They're not even doing it right according to the google structured data testing tool.

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[Edward_Sturm]

Sure, this is a typical example: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenshealthmag.com%2Flife%2Fthis-bride-walked-down-the-aisle-with-the-man-who-got-her-fathers-donor-heart

This link won't even get validated in the tool: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/10/sports/olympics/gymnastics-parents.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=image&module=photo-spot-regionion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This one is using schema.org markup but its not being recognized in the structured data testing tool: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/olympics/hope-solos-mistake-helps-colombia-tie-usa/ar-BBvsb4J?li=BBnb7Kz

Hell, check SI.com, it doesn't even use RDF, microdata, or JSON. I don't get it.

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[Edward_Sturm]

Interesting. Could this mean that the structured data is somehow being blocked. Should the Google Structured Data tool be the gold standard? What does it mean if it can't read the structured data?

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[Edward_Sturm]

Basically what I mean is if the validator made by Google isn't validating, that would indicate that the code should be cleaned up right?

[Guest]

This post is deleted!

[Edward_Sturm]

Haven't tried that, but that's not a bad idea, thanks. I assumed I wouldn't hear back.