AggregateRating JSON-LD help needed
-
Hey all,
Working with gydeandseek.com and trying to get 5-star reviews to show up at a SERP Feature on some of their pages. Everything validates using the Structured Data Testing Tool, yet we are not seeing anything in search. We have had this SERP Feature show up in the past.
Here is a sample page - https://gydeandseek.com/budapest/gabriella
Hoping the greater consciousness (aka you) can help us figure out what we are doing wrong here. Or if it is just Google deciding not to display the aggregateRatings in search. Other clients who use this markup have it show up pretty quickly, trying to figure out why it isn't here and generally stumped.
Thanks,
- Tim
-
Tim,
It is tough to say where to start on that page if you're going to provide recommendations on how to get the review to show up. I guess I'd start by marking up the single review / rating itself on the page in JSON-LD, as well as the aggregateRating. The review should be about that specific guide, not the company as a whole. Make sure that the review and rating are both viewable on the page, definitely not a thousand pixels off-screen, and preferably without JavaScript rendering. If JS has to be rendered client-side (as is the case of everything but the Facebook pixel in the Noscript tag) then make sure the page can be rendered by Google. As of now, it does not appear to be (see cache link below), but the "Fetch and Render" tool in Search Console is a better way to know for sure.
-
Thank you for your reply, really helpful.
The developer piece isn't really up to me, so trying to guide that team in the right direction as best I can.
- Tim
-
Using display:non and positioning an element 9999 pixels off the page is a pretty old-school tactic to hide content from users, but to show it to Google.
type="radio" name="rating" id="rating_1" value="1"
When you say you have "other clients" who use this markup, are they using the same site template and code? The page doesn't pre-render for Googlebot, and even when it does render there is that spammy-looking positioning of the star ratings.
The JSON-LD may be valid, but it seems confusing to me. The aggregate rating is based on a single rating, but I don't see the single rating. Further, the rating is supposed to be for the Guide, Gabriella, but the review description is about the website/brand. I think those two entities need to be marked up separately. Typically, the "brand/organization" entity is marked up on the homepage, about page, press, etc... and other pages that are specifically about the brand, as opposed to repeating Organization schema on every page.
My advice: Hire a new web developer.
{"@context":"http://schema.org","@type":"Service","url":
"https://gydeandseek.com/budapest/gabriella","aggregateRating":
{"@type":"AggregateRating","ratingValue":5,"reviewCount":1},
"name":"Gabriella Andronyi","brand":{"@type":"Brand","name":"Gyde & Seek","logo":
"https://gydeandseek.com/static/img/favicon.png"},"areaServed":"Budapest","description":
"Looking for a brilliant guide with a delightful sense of humor? Meet Gabriella...
","serviceType":"guide"}
-
I'd say that it's because the 5-star rating (as far as I can see) doesn't appear on or is not visible on the active page.
You have two competing forces here. Google's data and web-crawling teams push people to use JSON-LD. There's no argument that it feeds data to Google faster! A lot of the more recent documentation from Google's WebMaster tutorials does in fact push people towards the JSON-LD implementation
On the other hand, you have Google's anti-spam team. From their POV the JSON-LD implementation isn't so rosy. They used to purport the benefits of the Microdata implementation and with good reasons. With Microdata you have to physically have something visible on the page and then you wrap the schema around it. This stops people from feeding false-information to Google (which is far, far easier with the JSON-LD approach)
I have found that stuff marked up with Microdata is often far more likely to render in Google's SERPs (and far less likely to gain "rich snippet spam" penalties) than the JSON-LD stuff. It may feed the data slower, but the way it is structured forces people to deploy it in a more (yet not always wholly) legitimate manner
Basically Google is internally conflicted on which implementation is best. There are undoubtedly use-cases for JSON-LD where you actually just can't use Microdata, and in some of those instances it's legitimate to deploy JSON-LD instead (but you have to be really damn sure in terms of what you are doing!)
Sites have external metrics associated with them like authority and trust. If a site is highly regarded and trusted by Google, they may be willing to swallow the JSON-LD implementation method as it benefits their web crawlers. On the other hand, if a site is less known or has a history of shady practices, Google will often deny the JSON-LD implementation (or give the site using that implementation a penalty of some kind)
Remember, just because something is technically 'valid', that does not mean it's a legitimate implementation (which conforms to Google's guidelines) and it doesn't mean that Google will listen to the directive
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Structured data - reviews & aggregateRating
Hi all, We recently implemented structured data for reviews, specifically aggregateRating, on a few of our pages as a test. An example page is: https://www.vouchedfor.co.uk/financial-advisor-ifa/cambridge/01740-duncan-hannay-robertson Initially, this seemed to work well and we could see the star ratings and review number showing in Google search results. However, now it seems to have disappeared. Search console and the testing tool seem to suggest the structured data looks fine - when I posted this in the webmasters forum, the response I got was that it was because we're trying to mark what google deems a 'person' as a 'local business', which triggers their spam warning. And you can't have reviews for a person, apparently. I guess we're unique in that we're a review platform for professional advisers (for example, financial advisers). So whilst the profile is for a person, it's also a business - the reviews are for the professional services clients receive. Feels unfair to be penalised just because Google hasn't thought of our use case! We'd love to be able to showcase our review content, but feels like we're running out of ideas here. If anyone has any ideas for how we can make this work, it would be hugely appreciated!!
Reviews and Ratings | | Eric_S0 -
Does having a Google My Business website help my local seo?
Everybody says it's important to put as much information as you can into your Google My Business listing. I'm wondering if it helps to take Google up on it's offer to give you a free website in addition to the website I already have of my own.
Reviews and Ratings | | KenLapp1 -
Client has 2 locations across the street from each other, 1 of them doesn't show up in Google Maps anymore unless you type its specific branch name. Help
Client has 3 locations in NYC... 1 is on the east side
Reviews and Ratings | | jaimeurteaga
2 of them are a block apart on the west side (52nd & 51st street). When you search the business name, you only see 2 of the 3 listings - 1 on the East side and 1 of the 2 on the West side. On the West side only the one with more reviews shows up. The semi-hidden location still exists. You can find it if you type in the exact full name of the branch (it has the brand name + Midtown West vs its neighbor a block away that's brand name + Hell's Kitchen). Otherwise, it's invisible. The Hell's Kitchen location that appears has 3000+ reviews. The hidden one (Midtown West) has only 250+ reviews. In the past, all 3 would show up. How do we get all 3 to show up again, at the initial, zoomed out view?0 -
JSON-ld markup in Wordpress post
Hello, I updated a blog post with JSON-ld Schema Markup (ItemList): http://www.acmetools.com/blog/11-best-cordless-circular-saws-2017/ It is currently not being recognized within Moz's toolbar, but if you view the structured data testing tool, you will see it is there and has no errors? 1. Does that mean I have an error within my header pertaining to JSON-ld markup? I can also see all the markup in the structured data testing tool. Right after the closed script of the markup I have this message: 2. Is that an issue to have all my markup, then it says START --> then END -->? Should my markup be between them?
Reviews and Ratings | | BR19480 -
Local pack ranking anomaly -- help?
At a bit of a loss on this one... If anyone has any ideas about what's going on or how to tackle this, I'm all ears. One of my clients, an orthodontist, is appearing in the top three organic positions and in the local pack for almost all keywords we're targeting. However, for the keyword "orthodontist" without any location modifiers attached to it, we're appearing in the top three organic results but our Google listing is not appearing in the local pack. The three listings appearing in the local pack are his next-door competitor, one practice that closed almost a year ago, and a practice in two towns over. He and his competitor are the only two orthodontists in this town, so they should theoretically be the two main listings that are being pulled in. The listing for the closed practice is marked as closed on Google and has been reported to Google several times in the last few months. The listing has no website or reviews on it, although it does have an address and a phone number. We have spent months doing aggressive, in-depth NAP/local listing cleanups. We have 24 Google reviews with an average rating of 4.6 stars, and we're organically gathering reviews every week. We went through a site redesign at the beginning of this year, so we now have a mobile responsive website. We are appearing in the local pack for almost every other keyword that we have high organic rankings for, so we know it isn't necessarily an issue with our Google My Business listing. Does anyone have any ideas of what's going on, or what we can do to get our listing to appear in the local pack for this keyword? The keyword "orthodontist" is the single most important keyword to this client and our strategy, so we're open to any and all suggestions or thoughts.
Reviews and Ratings | | mothner0 -
The chicken community needs your helpful ideas
Hey Mozzers! We are currently working on reputation management for a client that sells chicken coops. They've gotten a few nasty reviews from one of the most popular community forums. Given the high DA it will be hard work (understatement of the year) to outrank that forum thread enough to knock it off the first page of SERPs. I've been brainstorming some unique ideas for the chicken community that could bring a more positive rapport to the product. We've considered an interactive game, polls, content for chicken communities and publications. Mozzers always have such fantastic insight, I thought I'd open up the brainstorm and see if anyone has a great, unique idea to drive traffic and increase brand engagement and awareness! Thanks so much in advance for your awesome ideas!
Reviews and Ratings | | localwork0 -
Why does Google return 1 star reviews in local listings as the "most helpful"?
I have a client who has recently received two 1 star reviews on Google local (unhappy customer and unhappy customers boyfriend). This is affecting an otherwise flourishing business as these two 1 star reviews are displayed prominently when you search for the brand in Google. They have since received more positive reviews, however Google insists on displaying, what they term, the "most helpful" reviews first. Why are these 1 star reviews deemed "most helpful"? In all honesty, they aren't even really that helpful, with the latter verging on slanderous. We are in the process of reporting this one as it personally attacks a member of staff, however, whilst we tentatively wait weeks for a response, I wondered if anyone has any idea on how G decides which reviews are "most helpful"? When there is no option for other users to rate these reviews as helpful (such as on play store).
Reviews and Ratings | | Silkstream0 -
Started using a 3rd Party Review Company for our Website. Do we need to show the reviews or is a widget (badge) with a link back to review company sufficient enough from an SEO ranking point of view?
Hi All, We have started to use a 3rd party review company and now have the choice of either implementing their re-supplied widgets (Java ) on our site showing customer reviews or use their an API to get this information. The widgets (Java) , would be loaded once the page is actually loaded so I am not sure how and if google will read this information if at all? If we use a widget then we won't be able to implement it with Schema.org although we will be able to use rich snippets to it will appear on any PPC (once we have had 30 reviews). If we go down the API route, it's more expensive for us but we can use the review schema.org for this. Does anyone have any experience of what works best for them ?.. We have a choice of having a widget showing latest reviews or just a badge (which is actually a link to the review site showing our reviews). From an SEO point of view, is one better than the other ? Does google actually read the content of the review or is the link back to the 3rd party review company sufficient enough to help with rankings etc. Am I correct in assuming that by linking to a 3rd party review company and showing our reviews on our site , this will help with rankings as even though the content in the reviews doesn't really say much ,. I did see it was a ranking factor on the survey but not sure how google uses this. ? I've read up some information on reviews etc but wondered what the general consensus was with what others found works best for them Any help greatly appreciated Pete
Reviews and Ratings | | PeteC120