All geek questions in one place

Schema.org: Use Microdata, RDFa, or JSON-LD?

Are there any advantages / disadvantages to using a particular format for http://www.schema.org/Product ? Something like "Searchengines understand Microdata better than JSON-LD"? I would like to use JSON-LD because it will not ruin your html code, but I'm not sure it would be better if search engines used Microdata.

+4
source share
1 answer

There is no general answer, it depends on the data consumer.

A particular consumer supports a specific set of syntaxes and may or may not recommend a subset of these supported syntaxes.

Since search engines usually try not to be mistaken (for example, the X requirements page using Schema.org is roughly equal to Y), it seems natural that they would prefer syntax connecting the scheme. org metadata to the visible content of the page ( in HTML5 , it will be Microdata or RDFa ); for the same reasons why many meta tags are dead for SEO.

However, this is not always the case. For example, Google recommends using JSON-LD for several of its functions (my bold accent):

  • Promote critical reviews :

    Although we strongly recommend using JSON-LD , Google can also read schema.org fields embedded in a web page with microdata or RDFa standards.

  • Link Search Box :

    We recommend JSON-LD . In addition, you can use microdata.

+5
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/986030/

More articles:


All Articles