Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Our team QA specialist recently noticing that the class identifier URLs via productontology are 404ing out saying that the "There is no Wikipedia article for (particular property)". They are even 404ing for productontology URLs that are examples on the productontology.com website!

Example:

http://www.productontology.org/id/Apple

The 404 page says that the wiki entry for "Apple" doesn't exist (lol)

Does anybody know what is going on with this website?  This service was extremely helpful for creating additionalType categories for schema categories that don't exist on schema.org.  Are there any alternatives to productontology now that these class identifier URLs are 404ing?

Thanks

So I have client that delivers goods to residential addresses and commercial businesses.  They have 60+ distribution centers but want to target surrounding counties, cities and territories.

Our development team was considering using virtual location pages (thousands) for these service areas.  I have lobbied against this out of concern that Google would label these "doorway" pages.  These pages would not have full addresses.

I want to develop a strategy to gain coverage in these surrounding delivery areas.   I was told that applying https://schema.org/serviceArea might help.  However will this truly bring in the necessary visibility?   Would having only a few key select virtual locations suffice (along with Service Area schema)?

Any advice on applying https://schema.org/serviceArea attributes would be much appreciated.
Thanks

Excellent response Marcus.  Thanks for your feedback.

I have a client that has multiple virtual locations to show website visitors where they provide delivery services.   These are individual pages that include unique phone numbers, zip codes, city & state.  However there is no address (this is just a service area).

We wanted to apply schematic markup to these landing pages.  Our development team successfully applied schema to the phone, state, city, etc.  However for just the address property they said VIRTUAL LOCATION.  This checked out fine on the Google structured data testing tool.

Our question is this; can just having VIRTUAL LOCATION for the address property be construed as spamming?  This landing page is providing pertinent information for the end user.  However since there is no brick and mortar address I'm trying to determine if having VIRTUAL LOCATION as the value could be frowned upon by Google.

Any insight would be very helpful.

Thanks

I know this seems like an old school question.  As a long time SEO I would never use ALL CAPS in a title tag (unless a brand name is capitalized).  However I recently came across a Moz video about creating better calls to action in the meta description tags.  Some of the examples had CTAs that were using all caps (i.e. CALL NOW!  or LOWEST QUOTES!)

I realize there is a debate about the user experience implications.  However I'm more concerned about search engines penalizing websites that are using ALL CAPS CTAs in their meta description tags.

Any feedback/advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Thank you Kristina:   These are awesome examples. It's just what I needed.

Thanks so much for taking the time to submit these.

I am being asked to provide hard data in support the migration to a responsive website for a large B2B website. I have searched for any case studies showing before/after comparisons - no luck.

I can easily show:

• Current data on desktop vs mobile visitors, their bounce rate, pages per visit, etc.
• Google Analytics Benchmark data - really compelling stuff there!
• In the past year, 100K visitors have come to the site from mobile devices.
• GWMTs shows the client not receiving mobile impressions for important keywords,
• All the close competitors have gone responsive.
• In APAC regions, mobile is more widely used than in the USA.

BUT, I can’t show that making this expensive and time-consuming transition will result in more revenue. The client is a financial services software company, with a 2-3 year sales cycle.

Has anyone seen data to support this transition?

Thanks everyone! Have a great long weekend.

Thanks EGOL.  Still looking for additional evidence about this.

Yep I completely agree with your response.  Unfortunately I'm in a position where I manage major enterprise accounts with multiple stakeholders (including some people are not educated in SEO).  Every major change we propose needs to be documented, cited and reviewed.  When making an argument for content expansion I would need to use thorough research example (Moz study, documentation on search engine land, etc).

Anyway thank for taking the time to share your feedback and advice on this thread.  Although this is not the answer I wanted to hear (i.e. Google doesn't respect collapsed content)...however it's very likely accurate.  This is a serious SEO issue that needs to be addressed.

We are applying 500 to 800+ word custom content blocks for our client landing pages (local landing pages) that shows a preview of the first paragraph and a "read more" expansion link.  We know that most website visitors only care about the location info of these particular landing pages.  We also know that our client UX teams would certainly not approve an entire visible content block on these pages.
Are there any case studies about this issue?  I'm trying to find a bona fide research project to help back up our argument.

How collapsed was your content?  Did you hide the entire block?  Only show a few sentences?  I'm trying to find a research article about this.  This is a MAJOR issue to consider for our SEO campaigns.

Yes that is a very legitimate concern of mine.  We have invested significant resources into custom long form content for our clients and we are very concerned this all for nothing...or possibly worse (discounting content).

Recently I have been promoting custom long form content development for major brand clients.  For UX reasons we collapse the content so only 2-3 sentences of the first paragraph are visible.  However there is a "read more" link that expands the entire content piece.
I have believed that the searchbots would have no problem crawling, indexing and applying a positive SEO signal for this content.  However I'm starting to wonder.  Is there any evidence that the Google search algorithm could possible discount or even ignore collapsed content?

Yes, thank you.  However I'm looking for a simple layman's analogy.  Most of the blog post readers are not going to be able to comprehend the technical aspects.

I'm currently writing a blog post about schema.  However I want to set the record straight that schema is not exactly the same as structured data, although both are often used interchangeably.  I understand this schema.org is a vocabulary of global identifiers for properties and things.   Structured data is what Google officially stated as "a standard way to annotate your content so machines can understand it..."

Does anybody know of a good analogy to compare the two?

Thanks!

Hello:  I have a client that has Structured data set up correctly to include their social profiles for FB, Twitter, and Google+.   But when I run an audit tool it tells me that they need  < re=Publisher > tag for Google Plus.

My understanding is that we don't need any additional code beyond the Structured Data tags.  Is that correct?

Thank you

Rosemary

If I recall we used to be able to change our title attributes tag dynamically based on the search query but not sure if it's possible now or if it makes sense to do so.

Thoughts?

Rosemary

We are using BuzzSumo to explore the types of content that generate the highest number of shares per article.

Does anyone have data to suggest that a share on Google+ carries more ranking weight than a share on Twitter or Facebook, or LinkedIn?

We have seen a recent case with one of our client's competitors where they significantly grew their Google+ shares within a relatively short period of time and gained a higher rank for a key search phrase that my client is also targeting.

Thank you,

Rosemary Brisco

Lately we have been applying structured data to the main content body of our client's websites.  Our lead developer had a good question about HTML however.

In JSON-LD, what is the proper way to embed content from a data field that has html markup (i.e. p, ul, li, br, tags) into mainContentOfPage. Should the HTML be stripped our or escaped somehow?

I know that apply schema to the main body content is helpful for the Googlebot.  However should we keep the HTML?  Any recommendations or best practices would be appreciated.

Thanks!

I have a client with a simple one page landing website hosted on Squarespace.  Is there any method to easily apply structured data to this format?