GoodRelations is a standardized vocabulary for product, price, and company data that can (1) be embedded into existing static and dynamic Web pages and that (2) can be processed by other computers. This increases the visibility of your products and services in the latest generation of search engines, recommender systems, and other novel applications.
Aaron Bradley
aaranged at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 8 15:59:53 CET 2011
GoodRelations is one of the markup formats supported by Google to produce rich snippets in search engine results pages. Rich snippets are described in broad terms here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/11/rich-snippets-for-shopping-sites.html And by this suite of Google reference pages: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=21997 This related Google page contains a product properties table comparing hProduct, GoodRelations, Google Product format and Google Merchant Center feed properties : http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=186036 That sort of answers "what part" of GoodRelations is currently supported by Google, insofar as I understand that question. Namely product-related information that appears in rich snippets. To the best of my knowledge the gr:BusinessEntity is not used, say, to produce localized geo-targeted listings (e.g., Google Map pins), but I could be wrong and would welcome any evidence to the contrary (as I think it would be a sensible use of these data by Google). Bing has yet to formally support any structured product data, but I would be very surprised if this continues indefinitely. As Yahoo results are now powered by Bing, Yahoo's legacy support of GoodRelations may mean that enhanced product information appears there: http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/2010-August/000245.html More generally in terms of ROI, I'd offer the opinion that structured product markup to better inform the search engines and enhance search results is here to stay - so I think an investment in GoodRelations is a safe one. And for any merchant that sells products online, there's not a lot of additional technical overhead involved in producing GoodRelations markup for those already producing a Google Merchant Center feed (where the investment for the latter is, perhaps, easier to justify, as it is required to turn up in Google shopping results). As an aside, have you ever considered a forum Martin? 1. What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? (L?szl? T?r?k) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:12:10 +0100 From: L?szl? T?r?k <ltorokjr at gmail.com> Subject: [goodrelations] What parts of Goodrelations are implemented by major search engines? To: goodrelations at ebusiness-unibw.org Message-ID: <AANLkTimcSymtmok_AGdEUbkm+R3qYZ=AtToaej-OsEQG at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, I was going over the GoodRelations wiki in the last too days, a very comprehensive work even if some of it is still WIP. The wiki is well formulated, I did not have any issues with understanding the concepts and methods described there. However, there is one important missing page that is essential for adopters on the data provider side IMHO. Considering the compelling use case of semantic SEO and increased visibility via marking up the products and services with GoodRelations, I cannot currently tell, what part of the GoodRelations vocabulary is supported by major search engines (Yahoo, Google). I found the links to Google Rich Snippets and Yahoo Searchmonkey, however, I am still missing something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML_5). It is clear that there is a chicken-and-egg problem with respect to who should implement support first. (data providers or data consumers). Therefore, I am sure there will be arguments, that the more data providers implement, the higher the incentive for search engines to support it. However, if I am running an e-commerce site even as small as simple web shop running on a shared server, I want to be able to assess the return on investment that goes into the semantic markup. Has this concern been raised previously? Many thanks, Laszlo T?r?k -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ebusiness-unibw.org/pipermail/goodrelations/attachments/20110308/d7ee4fac/attachment.html>