XF 2.0 Google Search Console - Missing position field

[Betclever]

Hi guys,

I have received an mail from Google in order to fix an issue...
Here is the message in question: Google Search Console - Missing position field

Can someone help me with this and what does this mean?

Thx.

 

[Russ]

XF 2.1 - Missing field "position" Breadcrumb markup

Anyone else getting Missing field "position" in the breadcrumb trail in search console the past week ?

xenforo.com

I believe the relevant code was added in 2.0.9 (around there), so assuming you're upgraded to at least that version make sure your PAGE_CONTAINER is up-to-date.

 

[Betclever]

XF 2.1 - Missing field "position" Breadcrumb markup

Anyone else getting Missing field "position" in the breadcrumb trail in search console the past week ?

xenforo.com

I believe the relevant code was added in 2.0.9 (around there), so assuming you're upgraded to at least that version make sure your PAGE_CONTAINER is up-to-date.

Here is the part:

<xf:macro name="crumb" arg-href="!" arg-value="!" arg-position="{{ 0 }}">
    <li itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/ListItem">
        <a href="{$href}" itemprop="item">
            <span itemprop="name">{$value}</span>
        </a>
        <xf:if is="$position"><meta itemprop="position" content="{$position}" /></xf:if>
    </li>
</xf:macro>

Do I have to remove this part of code?

 

[Russ]

Here is the part:

<xf:macro name="crumb" arg-href="!" arg-value="!" arg-position="{{ 0 }}">
    <li itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/ListItem">
        <a href="{$href}" itemprop="item">
            <span itemprop="name">{$value}</span>
        </a>
        <xf:if is="$position"><meta itemprop="position" content="{$position}" /></xf:if>
    </li>
</xf:macro>

Do I have to remove this part of code?

That's the correct code you need inside your style. Make sure that bit is in PAGE_CONTAINER. If you're running a third-party style I'd reach out to them for help if it's not there as well.

 

[sbj]

Well, I got the same warning running 2.1.3 and have the default style.

 

[Betclever]

That's the correct code you need inside your style. Make sure that bit is in PAGE_CONTAINER. If you're running a third-party style I'd reach out to them for help if it's not there as well.

The XF version I use atm is 2.1.1 and the template is apparently up2date.
Very weird...

 

[Betclever]

Even if the part of the above code is in PAGE_CONTAINER why do I get this message from Google then?
Can someone tell me how do I fix this for avoiding SEO issues?

Thx.

 

[Chris D]

I'll just post this, again.

Schema Markup Testing Tool | Google Search Central | Google for Developers

Use the Rich Result Test to see what Google results can be generated for your pages and the schema markup validator for generic schema validation.

search.google.com

If you are being told that you have URLs which are failing their structured data tests, then run those URLs through the above tool for more information.

If there are no errors, you can ignore what is in the search console. If there are, it will explain where they are.

 

[Betclever]

I'll just post this, again.

Schema Markup Testing Tool | Google Search Central | Google for Developers

Use the Rich Result Test to see what Google results can be generated for your pages and the schema markup validator for generic schema validation.

search.google.com

If you are being told that you have URLs which are failing their structured data tests, then run those URLs through the above tool for more information.

If there are no errors, you can ignore what is in the search console. If there are, it will explain where they are.

Thanks.
I don't have any EM so why do they send me an email then?
Very weird...

I just want to be sure I will not destroy my SEO...

 

[Chris D]

SEO isn't a fragile thing. People will have you believe your entire site's welfare hinges on this almost mythical, paper thin concept called SEO.

Get out of that mind set. Most SEO is the epitome of "micro-optimization" where even "errors" (if they actually exist in the first place) are edge cases that you probably ought to fix, at some point, but even if you don't, nothing will happen.

In this case, it seems, the search console is incorrect (I'd trust the Structured Data Testing Tool more than Search Console at this point).