Not planned Update meta data, schema and rich snippets

Alfa1

Well-known member
Google is changing the requirements of meta data and rich snippets.

The two new link attributes joining rel=“nofollow” are:
  • rel=“sponsored”: Identifies links on a site that were created as part of advertising, sponsorships or similar agreements.
  • rel=“ugc”: Identifies links that appear within user generated content, such as comments and forum posts.

Reviews rich snippets are only allowed for the following types:
Google also supports reviews for the following schema.org types:

Which means that the current meta data for reviews is no longer valid.

Please consider to do a review of the current approaches to evaluate which meta data could be updated or improved upon.
 

delicatebobster

Active member
Yep got this email today

Issues found with your Review Snippet markup

Dear Search Console site owner,

Google systems show that your site is affected by 43 instances of Review Snippet markup issues. This means that your Review Snippet markup might not appear as rich results in Google Search.

Search Console now supports a new rich result report for Review Snippets. This report shows any Review Snippet markup issues that Google found on your site. Click a property in the list below to open the Review Snippet Rich Result report for that property:
 

Alfa1

Well-known member
Yes, I got 414 issues so far. All in XFMG, XFRM, and addons that use the same approach. Since it started just a few days ago, I'm sure Google will find 10k+ in time.
 

ozzy47

Well-known member
This is already suggested,
 

Alfa1

Well-known member
This suggestion indeed includes that earlier suggestion. But the current suggestion is much wider in scope.
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
The latest version of RM has actually removed review schema metadata because there are no generic categories that make sense which would support it.

As pointed out, the rel=ugc change has been proposed already.

So there’s really nothing for us to action here.
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
I believe it was at the same time. Or the category we use there is applicable. I’ll check.
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
The review metadata remains for media gallery because it uses "MediaObject" (and its children) as the type and that is one of the supported ones.
 

Alfa1

Well-known member
Is there a difference between XFMG1 and 2? I am running XFMG1 and Google Search Console is displaying errors for all entries. This part is incorrect according to Google:
"@type": "AggregateRating",
 

Mike

XenForo developer
Staff member
Just to mention that we debated about removing the rating metadata from the RM, but ultimately we decided not to. The changes Google made are specific to Google and not applicable to the spec or other services that might use the functionality.

Notably, in the case of the RM, Bing still shows aggregate rating information:

1581417218466.png
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
Is there a difference between XFMG1 and 2? I am running XFMG1 and Google Search Console is displaying errors for all entries. This part is incorrect according to Google:
"@type": "AggregateRating",
I can't remember to be honest. Very likely different so errors may be expected.
 
Top