i´m using google rich-snippet markup
and you define the type like
<div id="ap_top" itemscope itemtype="http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate">
when you look up http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate in the browser, google say 404, not found thats all we know
i didn´t found anything about this is not used anymoren ?
anyone got information bout that ?
thanks in advance
You can still use the data-vocabulary.org URIs.
Even when they were offline forever, you could still use them. It’s about the URIs, not the pages you can find there.
However, on http://www.data-vocabulary.org/ you can read:
Since June 2011, several major search engines have been collaborating on a new common data vocabulary called schema.org.
So you might want to use http://schema.org/ in the future.
Related
Some days ago, some friends of mine told me to avoid using <iframe> for virtually anything, which of course includes Google Maps. That made me do some research and, among other things, find this thread in Quora (http://www.quora.com/Google-Maps/What-are-best-practices-and-recommendations-to-implement-Google-maps-within-an-iframe-on-a-webpage), which I think isn't conclusive, at least in my case. I've made a simple site which includes displaying a Google Map. I used an <iframe> because it is very simple and, as pointed out before, it is the option that Google offers within every map, so I guessed it was the optimal one.
My question is: using an <iframe> is always a bad solution, or in a simple case like mine (only displaying a location map), is it recommended?
Thank you all, please let me hear your thoughts on this,
João
Using an iframe is like having another page loaded in your browser. Which takes resources. I think this is what the suggestion to avoid it based on. But naturally, the solution is to avoid those who suggest that you should avoid something always. Just use it when it makes sense and know where to stop.
my question seems to be dumb, but because am making an application that all the pages needs to get the users authentification, and because am using HTML5 so,
Does Google robots parse those pages?
if no, so then, is it useful to use Microformats?
It depends on exactly what you are trying to do, but the question Microformats solve is "How can I make this HTML easily understandably by a computer?".
If you think that a computer will ever need to parse out the data in a meaningful way, then use it.
This could be either Google (though in your case, it won't be able to log in), an internal search you write at some point, a browser extension to highlight some sort of information etc.
In short though, it's unlikely to be useful, but on the other hand it's not hard to implement!
I imagine there must be out there a website that collects information about HTML 5 feature and what browsers version started to support them.
This might be a good way to decide based on your website profile, if you can apply that HTML 5 feature without a fallback for your visitors.
Do you know such a site/resource ?
For example I want to know what browsers support the multiple upload feature for inputs and what browser version was the first.
Update
I'm not pleased with the sites suggested so I'm opening a bounty.
Suggestions so far: Html5Test, Caniuse, modernizr.com, QuirksMode
Update 2
Some people don't understand the question. I need to implement the multiple upload feature. I know from analytics what browser are they using ( I know this is not 100% correct ).
I'm willing to sacrifice some of the visitors by not offering some advance features but I need to understand how big is this procent. I'm NOT trying to DETECT in anyway the browser. It's a similar approach with other sites that dropped IE 6 support.
So please don't talk about bad practice.
Try to look at Html5Test or caniuse.
If it's server side, you can analyze user agent to find out if client's version supports HTML5. Wikipedia is your friend.
If it's client side, there's Modernizr library.
A quick search gave me this interesting result (reproduced in several blogs): http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus/
And you can may also want to take a look at this list of how to detect each feature: http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/everything.html
Here is another website, quite incomplete but verbose and "work in progress" as of March 2011, so it might be worth keeping an eye on: http://html5accessibility.com/
This one is off topic, but since I found it, I add it. CSS compatibility in IE browsers (very extensive): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(VS.85).aspx
And here you can find info specific to the gecko engine: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/HTML5
And, of course, MDC has compatibility tables for each feature, but separated in different pages, not as a table, e.g.: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/input
http://www.modernizr.com/
HTML5Test.com collects the information but they don't give detailed reports for perusal.
A good reference site for some stuff is http://www.browserscope.org/ but that doesn't go into a lot of detail with HTML5 specific support
Another source of related stuff is http://w3c-test.org/html/tests/reporting/report.htm which is creating a set of HTML testing tools that can be run.
You or someone who wanted to create this information could use these tests and then store the UA String of each browser that hit the site with the results of each test.
Then you could just find the earliest version of each browser type that a feature successfully run on.
I think this information is stored in the databases of the sites mentioned but they just don't display it which sort of sucks. Maybe try emailing them and suggesting they add these reports.
Take a look at caniuse.com, it’s exactly what you are searching for.
QuirksMode is also a great resource, and there is an entry for multiple files input.
My vote is for:
http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus
Which i found via this blog:
http://www.deepbluesky.com/blog/-/browser-support-for-css3-and-html5_72/
You should try this website. I hope this is what you were looking for.
What is the benefit of using XFN (XHTML Friends Network)? I've seen this on multiple blogs and social networking sites but I don't really understand why it's useful. Other than being able to style these elements with CSS3 and select them with JavaScript, what's the benefit? Do you know of any sites out there that really utilize XFN to enhance the user experience? Also, are there similar alternatives to XFN?
Do you know of any sites out there
that really utilize XFN to enhance the
user experience?
Microformats aren't meaned to show extra information on the website itself, if it was, it could be used like John. You should think in another direction, for example, maybe browsers will support microformats one day.
Search engines may find this XFN-information interesting for one or another reason to see how the world is connected; I'm not sure what they actually could do with this information. You can read about that on Wikipedia
By the way, you can find out who your friends on the web are using Google's Social Graph API
Also, are there similar alternatives to XFN?
Take a look at microformat.org's wiki
For an example of what I mean, search on Google for "Last.fm". The first result will be www.last.fm and 8 additional links are listed; "Listen", "Log in", "Music", "Download", "Charts", "Sign up", "Jazz music", and "Users". I looked around in their HTML but couldn't figure out where this information was supplied to Google.
Any help? Thanks :)
You can try looking at the Google Webmaster Tools, and provide google with a webtree of your site.
Write semantic markup.
Google work out the important links from that, they aren't told explicitly.
Google's documentation explains the process.
In your sitemap you can specify priority for pages.
The above answers are all good.
You might also try NO FOLLOWING (rel="nofollow") unimportant links on your homepage or other pages. Google will the give more weight to the followed links.
It used to be that you needed to be pagerank 4 or higher to get the sitelinks to show up if you were the top result. (and then you could edit them via webmastertools)
but it seems like google are currently changing things around. apparantly they were not clicked enough to warrant taking up valuable space on the resultspage.
Use XML sitemaps. However, be warned that sitemaps must not be misused. There is a big debate on whether sitemaps are good or not.
I met such thing before.
What I did is submitting new, accurate site page to google.
Taking a close look at the content, as well as Mata tags to see if they are accurate and descriptive. In my case I reorganized the whole content.
Most important, I back to the track of SEO, refresh content frequently. Shame to me, I had not refreshed content for a long time.
I do not know which one plays the rule, but thing works pretty well now. Hope it it is worthwhile for you as a reference.