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..."|
- 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!