Google's John Mueller Says Structured Data is an Extremely Light Signal

by WarriorForum.com Administrator
9 replies
A new article on Search Engine Journal reports that Google's John Mueller just addressed multiple points about structured data and how the search engine giant uses it.



The Google man's insightful comments arrived during a Twitter conversation about structured data and how that gets used by Google. His comments touch upon the relevance of structured data to Google in terms of it being a signal. The whole exchange came about because of what seemed like a contradiction in part of a recent article. That related to the 'fact' that Google doesn't read unsupported structured data. After addressing the alleged contradiction and dismissing that, Mueller went on to expand on it, and to talk more about how Google uses structured data. The article from Search Engine Journal goes on to illustrate the tweets concerned. Mueller starts by clarifying what kind of structured data (SD) is considered as extra. Specifically, he calls attention to structured data types and information that is obvious. The first issue was about using the WebPage structured data type instead of a more specific data type:

"The thing is a lot of "extra" SD is super obvious. "This is a webpage", well, that's shocking, seeing we're crawling webpages. Lots of other SD is already clear from the page text (Is it a Ford car or a Ford president? No need for SD unless you're really creative in writing)."


According to Meuller, WebPage structured data type considered to be very general, or "super obvious." This is what Schema.org says this about WebPage structured data:

"Every web page is implicitly assumed to be declared to be of type WebPage..."
You can split structured data for Google into two types:
  • Rich Results Structured Data
  • Non-rich Results Structured Data

Basically, rich results structured data qualifies for a search results listing that is enhanced, aka a rich result. Non-rich results don't qualify. There is far more in the original article - this is just a taster, and it's well worth clicking the link at the top to read more!
#data #extremely #google’s #john #light #mueller #signal #structured
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    This was indeed an interesting exchange. However... Its not so cut and dry. Muellers words "How do you rank something purely from SD hints? It's an extremely light signal. If you're worried, make the content more obvious." So it is VERY clear that Google does not exclusively use SD to rank pages, or as they suggest it is a "light signal". The fact still remains IT IS A SIGNAL.

    SEO is not won or lost, ranked or unranked, on the merits of any ONE variable, it is a combination of many. I personally have never used the "Webpage" structural data type that does seem painfully obvious.

    An interesting little exercise as you run around the web searching things is look at searches where a sites "About Us" page appears. I would suggest that 99% of the time, that page is not painfully obvious as to what it is. As Mueller states " highly likely Google can already tell from the content that it's an "about page." " I would suggest this type of SD ( AboutPage, CheckoutPage, CollectionPage ) is a clear marker to suggest that this page even though it may warrant "Rank" is probably not a page that should be ranked. and you will find that to be the case - if you pay attention.

    Keeping that thought process in mind SD can be used in reverse and in your favor, if you will, to identify pages that for whatever reason may qualify for "Rank" but would be poor points of landing onto your site.

    The very statement that it is a "Light Signal" is proof within itself that it is not something that should be ignored.. but better understood. I will take the overall effect of 10 - 20 - 30 "Light Signals" in addition to 1 or 2 solid signals all day long.
    Signature
    Success is an ACT not an idea
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11638949].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author qwikaddotcom
    It only confirms why some terrible sites are at the top.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639075].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author writeaway
    I wouldn't put too much stock in Google's "official" pronouncements

    Many marketers have published results on how linking to high authority .edu and .gov sources help SERP rankings (with everything else being equal)

    Then Mueller quickly says that such practices don't boost SERP

    No wonder so many SEOs consider him the BAGHDAD BOB of Google - ie if he says something doesn't work, it actually works
    Signature

    Want To Make More Money Online? Invest in BETTER CONTENT!
    Articles - Blogs - Authority sites - Ecommerce descriptions - Emails - Youtube video scripts - AFFORDABLE RATES!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639161].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author praetserge
    I agree with writeaway, you should take all google official announcements with a pinch of salt.
    blog comments don't work, guest posts don't work, etc... and yet I see plenty of sites ranking with just spammy blog comments.
    Signature
    PREMIUM WP THEMES AND PLUGINS - Download unlimited WordPress & Shopify downloads. All downloads are 100% original and can be used on unlimited websites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author qwikaddotcom
    But why would he say something that's not true? Plenty of SEO gurus promise to "put your site on the 1st page" yet none of them can. They do all sort of tricks: They fix your "structured data", they give you hundreds of backlinks, they make sure you have "long tail keywords" within the text. And... nothing. It's because none of those things have any real weight. It's about great / unique content and usefulness. If users like your content and stick around your site the bot will pick up on that. But even that sometimes is not enough. Being the first, being the only one, being around for a long time can get you higher rankings too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639421].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Yet each first page for any search term has websites on it.


      They did not get there because of unique content. They have the same content as many of the sites on pages 2 or 6 or 26.


      There are SEO people who can put you on page 1, if you have enough money.



      They make sure you have long-tail keywords because it's the less expensive way to make a sale.


      If you have more money for ranking for auto insurance quotes than Geico has, you can outrank them.


      But if you're a local office, how would you make your money back from that keyword?



      Originally Posted by qwikaddotcom View Post

      But why would he say something that's not true? Plenty of SEO gurus promise to "put your site on the 1st page" yet none of them can. They do all sort of tricks: They fix your "structured data", they give you hundreds of backlinks, they make sure you have "long tail keywords" within the text. And... nothing. It's because none of those things have any real weight. It's about great / unique content and usefulness. If users like your content and stick around your site the bot will pick up on that. But even that sometimes is not enough. Being the first, being the only one, being around for a long time can get you higher rankings too.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639732].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author qwikaddotcom
        Originally Posted by DABK View Post


        There are SEO people who can put you on page 1, if you have enough money.
        I don't believe this for one second. If SEO people could do that they wouldn't need my or anyone else's money. They'd create their own sites and put them on the 1st page and make a whole lot money that way. The truth is they can't whether it's their own sites or anyone else's.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11639765].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LisaRuizLove
    I have other question... ask Johny Muller why he has bananas in twitter name
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11640218].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics