This is the archive of the goodrelations dicussion list

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>