4

I want to have a breadcrumb navigation on my website which is also shown as breadcrumb navigation in the google search results.

That's no problem, just working with microdata as seen here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/185417?hl=en

And checking if it works with: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

so everything works fine right now, but now I noticed that data-vocabulary.org which is used in the google microdata example is outdated and schema.org is the new standard.

And there comes the problem, this schema.org isn't working.

I used a this answer in Google Webmaster Tools Richsnippets and linter.structured-data.org. Google Richsnippets doesn't understand it and Linter prints:

Errors

ArgumentError: invalid byte sequence in US-ASCII

Structured data

The data did not match any templates on file. Submit a request to the mailing list to request support for additional templates.

No formats detected.
Parser statistics
RDF::Microdata::Reader: 8 statements
Matched Templates:  none

So that whole schema.org is very confusing and seems not to work.

Someone ones what I'm doing wrong?

Community
  • 1
  • 1
MaBi
  • 1,372
  • 3
  • 13
  • 19

1 Answers1

4

For now you should not use Schema.org for breadcrumbs. Just stay with data-vocabulary.org although it is outdated for other types. There were several similar discussions here already. Check this link where John Mueller from Google says that schema.org is not supported for breadcrumbs rich snippets.

at the moment we don't support the current schema.org breadcrumb markup for rich snippets, so you'd need to use one of the other documented formats. w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/10 also has some details about the difference. – John Mueller Jan 30 at 14:59

Community
  • 1
  • 1
ajax
  • 1,896
  • 15
  • 8
  • Thanks for your answer! But it's not really statisfying me, cause it's quite the same answer then [here](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13088284/breadcrumb-with-schema-org), which is from November 2012. So is it correct to say schema.org was a attempt of some search engines to collect there structured data, which overall failed? (cause primary things like breadcrumbs aren't working) And everyone should optimize for the search engine she/he thinks it's the best? – MaBi Jul 23 '13 at 17:05
  • Not really. Schema.org is supported by all major search engines and is actively developed by them. You may check this open mail list (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/), it lives and sounds. And as schema.org WG participant I can say that a lot of hot discussions occur internally. The problem is that some of the types and use cases (e.g. breadcrumbs) are not covered yet with attention they deserve. But I hope this will be fixed some day. But of course some nuances in markup consuming will always vary at different Search Engines. – ajax Jul 23 '13 at 20:51
  • hi ajax, cause of your last comment the current answer to my question is: Use schema.org where you can use it, otherwise use a equivalent and check later on for a schema.org markup. Thanks for your help, I have accpeted your first answer belonging to your comment. If someone reads that in the future and knows a schema.org way to use breadcrumbs, I would be very thankfull to here it. – MaBi Jul 24 '13 at 19:14