[SEO] Implement the Schema.org vocabulary

NEW
Assigned to

Status

www.mozilla.org
General
--
enhancement
6 years ago
17 days ago

People

(Reporter: kohei, Assigned: kohei)

Tracking

(Depends on: 1 bug, Blocks: 1 bug)

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: [kb=1082874] , URL)

(Assignee)

Description

6 years ago
Documentation: http://schema.org/docs/documents.html

I've implemented some vocabulary on the Mozilla Japan site at http://mozilla.jp/ -- still in progress so may contain mistakes.
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Severity: normal → enhancement
Summary: [SEO] Implement the schema.org vocabulary → [SEO] Implement the Schema.org vocabulary
(Assignee)

Comment 1

6 years ago
And here's the Rich Snippets Testing Tool you can test with:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmozilla.jp%2Ffirefox%2F

Comment 2

6 years ago
Schema.org is somewhat controversial in terms of the standards community. The SEO working group will need to consider whether Mozilla wants to support it by incorporating it.

http://tantek.com/2011/155/t6/schemaorg-open-standards-community-must-reject-schema-org

Something, you might ask Tantek and fantasi to weigh in on, as Mozilla's standards advocates.
(Assignee)

Comment 3

6 years ago
(In reply to mcbmoz from comment #2)
> http://tantek.com/2011/155/t6/schemaorg-open-standards-community-must-reject-
> schema-org

This is an old piece of information; see http://blog.schema.org/ for the current status of Schema.org.

Comment 4

6 years ago
Kohei, I'm very aware of the current information, it is still not something we have decided to support by default. I recommend following up with the SEO group on the standards they continue to discuss and implement.

Updated

5 years ago
Blocks: 745355
Component: www.mozilla.org/firefox → www.mozilla.org
Product: Websites → Websites
Which schemas are we talking about? I have not looked at schema.org closely, what is the best "flavour" of markup?
(Assignee)

Comment 6

5 years ago
Mainly http://schema.org/WebPage (the breadcrumb example is wrong, see http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/10)

http://schema.org/Article (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/about/history.html)
http://schema.org/Blog (e.g. http://blog.mozilla.org/)
http://schema.org/ContactPoint (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/contact)
http://schema.org/Event (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/events)
http://schema.org/JobPosting (e.g. http://careers.mozilla.org/en-US/)
http://schema.org/Person (e.g. http://blog.mozilla.org/press/bios/)
http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication (e.g. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/projects/)
Ok, so that seems like a meta bug. We should open bugs for every markup we want. I can see any of those as [good first bug]s.

Updated

5 years ago
Depends on: 725905
(Assignee)

Comment 8

5 years ago
Disclaimer: I don't know Mozilla's current stance on Schema.org. I believe it's a promising practice and worth implementing now, but you guys might want to discuss how to deal with it.
(Assignee)

Comment 9

5 years ago
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino from comment #8)
> it's a promising practice

Schema.org has been referenced from HTML5 spec, e.g.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-article-element
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
No longer depends on: 725905
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Depends on: 725905
(Assignee)

Comment 10

5 years ago
News! Schema.org 1.0 is finally coming later this month:
http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html
(Assignee)

Updated

5 years ago
Depends on: 705535

Updated

5 years ago
Depends on: 764035
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org

Updated

4 years ago
Whiteboard: [kb=1082874]

Comment 11

4 years ago
Here is a recent article

http://yoast.com/schema-org-genesis-2-0/

From research that I've done. The standard is pretty well set now and all major search engines support it.

How about we focus first on schema.org markup for the Firefox download page? This is a much smaller scope.

If we look at /firefox/new/ and what makes up that page, we could do the following:

Base template add vocabulary:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" id="wrapper">

Firefox base template add "image":

<h2><a href="/en-US/"><img itemprop="image" src="//mozorg.cdn.mozilla.net/media/img/firefox/new/header-firefox.png?2013-06" alt="Firefox for desktop"/></a></h2>

/firefox/new/ template add description:

<ul id="features"> <li>Proudly<br/>non-profit</li> <li>Innovating<br/>for you</li> <li itemprop="description">Fast, flexible,<br/>secure</li> </ul>

One issue is that the word "Firefox" is not on the /firefox/new/ template except when the download buttons are rendered. This makes it difficult to set the name and price markup. It could be done like the following, but then it would set it on all pages where the buttons are rendered.

Download button helper add "name" and "price":

 <span class="download-content"> <strong itemprop="name" class="download-title">Firefox</strong> <span itemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" class="download-subtitle"> <span itemprop="price">Free</span> Download</span> <span class="download-lang">English (US)</span> <span class="download-platform">Linux</span> </span>

The word "free" is only on the meta description and download buttons.
(Assignee)

Comment 12

4 years ago
That's Bug 764035. http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication is better on the Firefox product page. I have implemented it on http://www.mozilla.jp/firefox/ but actually Google ignores that.

Comment 13

4 years ago
(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #12)
> That's Bug 764035. http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication is better on the
> Firefox product page. I have implemented it on
> http://www.mozilla.jp/firefox/ but actually Google ignores that.

What use-cases and benefits could be had by using schema.org on non-product pages? Most of our SEO improvements are about getting products in front of as many eyes.
(Assignee)

Comment 14

4 years ago
Page types:
http://schema.org/WebPage (generic)
http://schema.org/AboutPage
http://schema.org/ContactPage

Pages structure:
http://schema.org/WPHeader
http://schema.org/SiteNavigationElement
http://schema.org/WebPageElement
http://schema.org/WPFooter

Other possible types on www.mozilla.org:

Breadcrumbs: the syntax is still fluid according to the public-vocabs list.

Products:
http://schema.org/Product
http://schema.org/SoftwareApplication
http://schema.org/MobileApplication

Organization:
http://schema.org/Organization
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2013/05/using-schemaorg-markup-for-organization.html

Articles:
http://schema.org/Article
http://schema.org/TechArticle (for release notes)

Contact page:
http://schema.org/ContactPoint
(Assignee)

Updated

4 years ago
Depends on: 944936
(Assignee)

Comment 15

3 years ago
Schema.org is spreading around the site, and it has become a coding standard...

Blog and BlogPosting for the Twitter timeline:
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/1642/files

Events for the MWC schedule 
https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/1662/files

I'll send a PR to add WebPage (and its variants), WPHeader, SiteNavigationElement, WebPageElement and WPFooter.
Assignee: nobody → kohei.yoshino
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
(Assignee)

Updated

3 years ago
Depends on: 969901
(Assignee)

Updated

2 years ago
Depends on: 1127092
(Assignee)

Updated

17 days ago
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.