ProductCart Shopping Cart Software Forums : Adding Schema.org Mark Up

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : Not sure how many folks beyond...

Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:58:18 +0000

Author: Guests
Subject: 5505
Posted: 22-September-2013 at 1:58am

Not sure how many folks beyond Lindsay & Art are following this, but I've been doing a tremendous amount of research on this and have a tool kit all worked up for it -- though not with pretty installation instructions yet.

I think it's running down the wrong path to look at any of this as "Schema.org Mark Up" (e.g. "itemscope/itemtype/itemprop" -- the Microdata markup)

This is all rather recently emerging, and I've spent a good deal of time bogged down in the tech debate regarding Structured Data/Semantic Web esp. regarding Microdata vs RDFa Lite. RDFa and RDFa Lite are now a true standard and the consensus of the W3C over Mircrodata (Schema.org is really more the current vocabulary -- over Data-Vocabulary.org -- and not really the syntax for marking up content, despite that it's still referencing Microdata markup).

Here's a bombshell post on that from the point person on the W3C, Manu Sporny:

http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/

"Here’s the short answer for those of you that don’t have the time to read this entire blog post: Use RDFa Lite – it does everything important that Microdata does, it’s an official standard, and has the strongest deployment of the two."

Then a month ago:

http://manu.sporny.org/2013/microdata-downward-spiral/

"Microdata doesn’t have an active community supporting it. It never really did.... If you want to build a solution on a solid technology, with a solid community and solid implementations; RDFa is that solution."

Seems things are changing so quickly that the major contributors are out of date: Schema.org examples, Google Webmaster references, Bing tools & references, etc.

Meanwhile Everyone else been chasing marking up their content for Microdata syntax because that's what the dated examples, references and sheep herd mentality are doing. I can't help but quote Sporny here:

"What I am saying is that if your customers want good search rankings, that you will use whatever technology will give you the best result. So, if Google makes it seem as if Microdata+schema.org is preferred, you will listen to their advice and implement it (because not doing so is going to be against your customer’s best interests)."

Perception is 9/10th of reality for most folks ... and with Microsoft/Yahoo!'s Bing validator, validating Microdata vs RDFa Lite clearly being biased towards Microdata in the tool -- despite that they've signed on as RDFa as the current standard for search.

So, that just makes this all so confusing for a merchant, let alone their SEO/SEM consultants as just a bunch of "egg head mumbo jumbo". Sporny is right, the herd will rush towards what they see in the examples, docs & tools (as they don't appreciate the tech).

For this reason I've worked it up as both fully validated Mircrodata, validated on everything, AND as RDFa Lite, validated on everything but Bing's obviously lacking validator. When I release, I'll provide folks the choice of which way they want to go with a recommendation of the RDFa Lite version.

I hope this isn't all too techie mumbo jumbo, as I think is is now a seriously important discussion to have: First, implementing Structured Data, and what data to include; Second, which way to go (Microdata or RDFa Lite).

Edited by Sean@WMS - 22-September-2013 at 2:34am

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : We also want to add the ability...

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:09:36 +0000

Author: whizzinpc
Subject: 5505
Posted: 25-March-2013 at 10:09pm

We also want to add the ability to see ratings and stock. It should definitely boost click throughs.

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : whizzinpc wrote:This should...

Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:25:14 +0000

Author: Lindsay
Subject: 5505
Posted: 23-March-2013 at 7:25pm

whizzinpc wrote:

This should be something built into PC.

Agreed. I hope EI adds the option to add rich snippets sooner rather than later.

Anyone have any input on editing pc files to mark up the product reviews? Having a product's google listing visually show that our customers have given it 5 of 5 stars would, I think, boost click throughs significantly.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=146645

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : This should be something built...

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:29:15 +0000

Author: whizzinpc
Subject: 5505
Posted: 22-March-2013 at 1:29am

This should be something built into PC.

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : Thanks again for all the help.Sorry...

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:28:03 +0000

Author: BDavid
Subject: 5505
Posted: 22-February-2013 at 5:28pm

Thanks again for all the help.

Sorry for the confusion Sean i copied that while trying a few different combinations.

Here is actually what I came up with after some trial and error. So far it has not caused any problems and it accounts for both products that are apparel add-on and ones that are not.

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

' START: Show SKU

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Sub pcs_ShowSKU

IF pHideSKU<>"1" THEN%>

<%=dictLanguage.Item(Session("language")&"_viewCat_P_8")%>:

<%'APP-S

if pcv_Apparel="1" then%>

<%else%>

<%=pSku%>

<%end if

'APP-E%>

<%ELSE%>

<%END IF

End Sub

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

' END: Show SKU

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any feed back is appreciated.

Thanks again guys,

Brian

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : Yes, Brian, that is what I was...

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:40:58 +0000

Author: Guests
Subject: 5505
Posted: 21-February-2013 at 5:40pm

Yes, Brian, that is what I was referring to.

First, have another look at the markup I sent you. I removed the for the apparel condition. That might help.

I suspect, though, that having the value of the parent product SKU (default when the page loads) stored as the value of an input might be a problem.

PC does this to switch up the SKU on the fly when the options selected combine to select a certain sub-product which represents that particular combination of options.

If it is the case that the input value is the problem, the ideal solution would be to revise this to not use an input for this purpose, but the more contemporary and switch up the value using .innerHTML rather than .value. A bit too complicated to show that here.

Scheme.org specifies not to tag any hidden elements, so if it's important to tag the parent product SKU for apparel items, the above would be the proper way to do it.

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : <<<dynamic apparel add-on...

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:33:02 +0000

Author: Greg Dinger
Subject: 5505
Posted: 21-February-2013 at 4:33pm

<<>>

Just so that you can use terminology that is commonly understand, that would be the subproduct SKU. And yes, I'm suspecting that if this is an apparel product you are looking at for your analysis, that the fact that this is reading an input tag that such may be the problem.

What you might want to do is to also write the SKU (either for standard products or the subproduct SKU) in plain text at a slightly different location on the page, and use CSS to non-display that value. Then wrap that with your code for the schema stuff. See if that plays nice.

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : Thank you for the ideas.I have...

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:06:10 +0000

Author: BDavid
Subject: 5505
Posted: 21-February-2013 at 4:06pm

Thank you for the ideas.

I have tried the changes and there was no change in the results. I have a felling it is due to the apparel add-on function (I may be dead wrong). I was able to have the SKU and its value show up in the structured data test on a product not using apparel add-on.

I may be way off base but the original products SKU appears as follows when you view source:

		SKU:

While the non-apparel add-on reads this way:

		SKU: 		9618BL/CH/SA

I can only assume the second has what I am calling a static SKU where I am guessing the additional information in the first allows for the dynamic apparel add-on SKU.

This is what you were referring to Sean, correct?

I do appreciate the ideas and if anybody has any others they would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for your time,

Brian

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : I'm curious what might happen...

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:27:31 +0000

Author: Greg Dinger
Subject: 5505
Posted: 21-February-2013 at 2:27pm

I'm curious what might happen if you did this:

Adding Schema.org Mark Up : Hi Brian,Excellent topic.I'm...

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:23:18 +0000

Author: Guests
Subject: 5505
Posted: 21-February-2013 at 2:23pm

Hi Brian,

Excellent topic.

I'm not sure how well the SKU value is going to be picked up on apparel items with the use of the input field there (it would be better if PC used a span with .innerHTML changing this up rather than .value, my thinks), but either way I expect this would give a better result:

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
' START:  Show SKU
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	
Public Sub pcs_ShowSKU
IF pHideSKU<>"1" THEN%>
	
		<%=dictLanguage.Item(Session("language")&"_viewCat_P_8")%>: 
		<%'APP-S
		if pcv_Apparel="1" then%>
			
		<%else%>
			<%=pSku%>
		<%end if
		'APP-E%>
	
<%ELSE%>
	
<%END IF
End Sub
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
' END:  Show SKU
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let us know if that works out better for you. Please try an apparel product and a standard product.