7 ms·
Google confirms microformats are still a supported metadata format for content
- tmpfs 7y agoGetting a PHP OOM error on that page.
- timdorr 7y agohttp://archive.is/8nhVQ http://archive.is/8nhVQ
- rufius 7y agoThat site does a really poor job demonstrating what a Microformat is. There’s good descriptors but I was looking for an example or scenario to better elucidate their use...
- dang 7y agoThe site has since been changed above (submitted url was http://microformats.org/2020/03/04/google-confirms-microformats-are-still-a-recommended-metadata-format-for-content http://microformats.org/2020/03/04/google-confirms-microform...).
- techntoke 7y agoNo where does it say they are still a recommended metadata format. The only recommended format that they list on their website is JSON-LD: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/sd-policies#form https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/sd-policies...
- nkozyra 7y agoWhat advantages do/did microformats provide over microdata/schema.org/ld-json?
- ZenPsycho 7y agopredating them. everything you listed is inspired by/based on microformats
- nkozyra 7y agoI assumed, it seems like a very 2008 solution. That's why I asked what advantages it had to justify retaining support for it for this long. I've been doing web development since the commercial web started and somehow this thing eluded me.
- ZenPsycho 7y agothere should be a mailing list for these things or something. "oembed", "jwt" and "opengraph" are also things that eluded me for a very very long time.
- jamietanna 7y agoOne key thing I've found useful of it is that it attempts to reduce duplication, by marking up existing data with CSS classes that then provide meaning
- epeus 7y agoI did a comparison here a while back: Simpler, more terse, use class rather than extra properties or giant json blobs. http://www.kevinmarks.com/microformatschema.html http://www.kevinmarks.com/microformatschema.html
- bawolff 7y agoMicroformats was based on standard html. That comes with pros and cons. Pros being its very easy to adopt, including in legacy CMS systems that might not support the other fancier stuff. For that matter, it also means web developers already understand it (Especially compared to writing XML RDF documents...) It also allowed mixing the presentation with the format. that meant people only had to maintain one copy of data, so its less likely to get out of sync, and people are less likely to forget to add the data later on. Downside is you're using something not really meant to support the use case of annotating data, so it ends up being a bit hacky. These things also did not come out all at the same time. Future techniques were partially made in response to microformats, just like (I'm assuming a bit here) that microformats were made as a response to SemanticWeb RDF-XML stuff.
- SquareWheel 7y agoSupported, but not recommended. I switched to JSON-LD last year after using microdata for years.
- taveras 7y agoAgreed. This post should be 100% be titled as supported instead of recommended. I recall that John Mueller recommended[1] JSON-LD over the other options during a Google Webmasters office hours session. Many of Google Search's Structured Data features[2] primarily have JSON-LD examples. [1]: https://youtu.be/gS4_JH-QqSg?t=2085 https://youtu.be/gS4_JH-QqSg?t=2085 [2]: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/search-gallery https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/search-gall...
- hannibalhorn 7y agoI hadn't heard of JSON-LD, but seems sensible, would sure be easier to work with than the traditional microformats. The name seems unfortunate, though, as I thought that was "line delimited JSON"[1]! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_streaming#Line-delimited_JSON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_streaming#Line-delimited_...
- zaxomi 7y agoJust wait, soon Google will announce that HTML is deprecated.
- theandrewbailey 7y agoGoogle recommends that developers use AMP instead.
- speedgoose 7y agoI rather apply to Google and get rejected, for the experience, than even considering AMP.
- echelon 7y agoAMP and Chrome are Google's HTML "embrace, extend, extinguish". In twenty years the web will be nothing but silos and ad funnels. Google is doing what Bill Gates wished Ballmer would have done. Thankfully the Justice Department stepped in to save the fledgling web. Will they be willing to do so to save it this time around? Google needs to be forced to abandon Chrome and AMP.
- ljm 7y agoGoogle took what MS did and made it absurd. Chrome is essentially adware, they just hide it too well. And Google is no longer a positive actor in our internet.
- bawolff 7y agoGoogle does a lot of things. Some negative some positive. Personally I am pretty concerned about the near monopoly that chrome has. However they have had an extremely positive impact on (for example) the security of web PKI infrastructure. I find it hard to call them not a positive actor on the internet, when they are one of the more responsible parties for the internet being secure from surveillance - a huge boon to the health of the internet.
- reaperducer 7y agoNo. Just no. I've removed all of the microdata from the web sites I manage. I'm not giving Google any information for free. Google uses microdata to show information from web sites without people actually visiting the site. Google gets free labor. Publishers get squat. Adding microdata to content pages consolidates information with Google, hurting everyone else. Google has billions of dollars to spend on scraping and searching and whatever it wants to do. It could mechanical turk the entire internet if it wanted. I am not Google's free labor.
- ZenPsycho 7y agomicrodata and microformats aren’t the same thing.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoOk, but what's the difference in relation what the parent poster said? You go through the trouble of adding microformats to your site you are helping Google analyze that site and potentially present data from that site without you ever going there. However microformats potentially help others, because of Google's actions it is to a site owner's benefit to not provide beneficial metadata past a certain point, assuming of course they want visits provided by Google.
- ZenPsycho 7y agoOn the off chance that you're adding microformats to your site in good faith rather than just trying to make it accessible to google, there are non google tools, utilities, search engines, applications, browser extensions and so on that make use of the microformat data, to, for instance provide "add to calendar" buttons to marked up events, or automatically convert an html blog to an rss feed. I don't know if they ever got there but there was a vision to have a standard markup for shopping cart items so browser extensions could assist with price comparisons.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
- Alex_P13 7y agoUseful, Thanks
- dang 7y agoUrl changed from http://microformats.org/2020/03/04/google-confirms-microformats-are-still-a-recommended-metadata-format-for-content http://microformats.org/2020/03/04/google-confirms-microform..., which points to this.
- jamietanna 7y agoThanks for sharing my post!
- pmlnr 7y agoHang on a sec... so Google specifies which vocabularies it accepts?! That goes completely against the idea of structured data. That's nasty and bad.
- dariusj18 7y agoAre there any CMS's create with schema.org in mind. ex. All of the schema.org types are represented and the website is build using a GUI generated by schema.org definitions?