Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Google, Bing, Yahoo Start Schema.org for Content Markup

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Google, Bing, Yahoo Start Schema.org for Content Markup

    Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) Bing and Yahoo (NASDAQ:YHOO) June 2 introduced schema.org, an effort to help Website publishers improve Web search results for users.
    Those top three search engines, particularly Google, take tons of flak and quips from journalists, pundits and search experts who claim results from these search results have grown increasingly laden with spam and low-quality content.
    Schema.org is no spam killer, but it will allow Google, Bing and Yahoo to create a common vocabulary for structured data markup on Web pages, including little data tidbits such as restaurant ratings and reviews, movies and locations, and even cooking time for recipes.
    This will help Website publishers and webmasters improve how their sites appear in major search engines, and hopefully make Website content more enjoyable and relevant for users.
    Read the entire article Google, Bing, Yahoo Start Schema.org for Content Markup - Search Engines - News & Reviews - eWeek.com

    It could be interesting, I would like to see that in action.

    What do you think?
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  2. I've looked at schema.org, and the type hierarchy in particular. I have a couple of issues:

    The schema doesn't relate to many of my sites in any meaningful way. Except for my recipe sites, this schema is pretty much useless. 98% of my pages are Thing -> Creative Work -> Article -> articleBody.

    This markup will allow Google to display more of my data directly in the search results pages, which may lead to a decreased number of click-throughs to my pages.
    Submit Your Webmaster Related Sites to the NB Directory
    I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Will.Spencer View Post
    I've looked at schema.org, and the type hierarchy in particular. I have a couple of issues:

    The schema doesn't relate to many of my sites in any meaningful way. Except for my recipe sites, this schema is pretty much useless. 98% of my pages are Thing -> Creative Work -> Article -> articleBody.

    This markup will allow Google to display more of my data directly in the search results pages, which may lead to a decreased number of click-throughs to my pages.
    With Google there is often a double edged sword. I remember to post an article about this issue, it was with Google map.

    They will do anythink to use or highjack our traffic because they are the king in search and webmasters are subjects. It is pretty the same as the feudalism mind set.

    It reminds me a few years ago the Google book issue:
    Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. Last night, I worked on adding a Recipe schema to one article by editing the recipe text manually and I also worked on adding Article schema elements to a Wordpress site by editing the template.

    Wowza, marking up content like this can be more work than creating content. For this to take off, it's is going to need some serious tool development to make it usable.
    Submit Your Webmaster Related Sites to the NB Directory
    I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Will.Spencer View Post
    Wowza, marking up content like this can be more work than creating content.
    The problem with any corporation monopolist, once they dominate their market they impose their way of thinking, which is often wrong and court decisions confirm that.

    They don't want creative webmasters, they want follower webmasters.

    Remember what they said:

    Google’s mission: Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

    I am wondering how ranking big brands on the top positions could be useful. Oops sorry they are probably the Google shareholders lol
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
    I am wondering how ranking big brands on the top positions could be useful.
    That is a useful strategy for Google because it is safe. They aren't likely to get a lot of bad press for ranking big brands extremely well.

    It also forces the other eCommerce players to buy AdWords. The big brands get so much direct traffic that they don't need to buy AdWords.
    Submit Your Webmaster Related Sites to the NB Directory
    I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Will.Spencer View Post
    That is a useful strategy for Google because it is safe. They aren't likely to get a lot of bad press for ranking big brands extremely well.
    I kind of agree with you Will on this but the purpose of ranking well a brand or site is how relevant it is from the queries and of course any other ranking factors.

    It seems like a brand now is something above all ranking factors like a multi pass. The reality if Google is concern about giving the best quality and the best people experience, is to help artisans, little manufacturers, and new service companies with better exposure.

    Do you think McDonald is the best fastfood? Well they are extremely good in marketing, but quetion of quality I prefere 100 times a hamburger from Fatburger which is one of the best fastfood burger brand in the West of the US. It means that a smaller brand will provide a better quality.

    My question is:

    Should Google penalize a small company providing high quality over a super maga corporation known all over the country with a generic quality?


    It also forces the other eCommerce players to buy AdWords. The big brands get so much direct traffic that they don't need to buy AdWords.
    My theory is that the big brands do not like small sites displayed above their corporation top ranking positions, so they monopolize the space by buying the spots from Adwords.

    Sure Google can do whatever they want, but what do people want? To have the big brands on internet looking like the TV or to have something different?
    Last edited by Franc Tireur; 16 June, 2011 at 00:05 AM.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  8. I have a couple of beefs with the whole "brand" push.

    One is this: If I wanted to go to a brand, I would just type in their #^$&^% domain name. I don't need Google for this. Google has no value add in telling me about Sears, JC Penny, WalMart, etc...

    Another is this: The brand push has made my search results far less relevant. I am seeing Microsoft and Wikipeda rank #1 with pages which are almost completely unrelated to the search term. Google has lost touch with relevance and that makes Google far less useful to me as a searcher.
    Submit Your Webmaster Related Sites to the NB Directory
    I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Will.Spencer View Post
    I have a couple of beefs with the whole "brand" push.

    One is this: If I wanted to go to a brand, I would just type in their #^$&^% domain name. I don't need Google for this. Google has no value add in telling me about Sears, JC Penny, WalMart, etc...

    Another is this: The brand push has made my search results far less relevant. I am seeing Microsoft and Wikipeda rank #1 with pages which are almost completely unrelated to the search term. Google has lost touch with relevance and that makes Google far less useful to me as a searcher.
    I agree with you Will.

    Brands existed before Google, so Google has no relevance to help big brands. Like I said perhaps these brands corporations are the main Google shareholders, who knows.

    It is funny because even my wife told me that: "if I want something from a brand, I don't need search engines, I type directly the brand domain name" and she is right.

    That's scary when a small group of Google engineers/PhD want to impose their way of thinking to all of us.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  10. Quote Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
    That's scary when a small group of Google engineers/PhD want to impose their way of thinking to all of us.
    Ahh... that's the way of the world; everyone wants to spread their memes.
    Submit Your Webmaster Related Sites to the NB Directory
    I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •